<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 4/14/2012 5:42 AM, Andrew Myers wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4F8970AC.8080105@cs.cornell.edu" type="cite">On
4/14/12 8:31 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 4/14/12 3:45 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">¡Hello! <br>
<br>
¿How fare you? <br>
<br>
It is tedious to rank hundreds of candidates, but sometimes
monster is on the ballot and all unranked candidates are last.
If the field is so polarized that the voters idiotically
refuse to rank other serious candidates other than their
candidate and the evil candidate has followers, the bad
candidate might win. I suggest that Condorcet should have a
dummy-candidate: <br>
<br>
0 The ranked candidates. <br>
1 The unranked candidates. <br>
2 The dummy-canditate. <br>
3 The monsters. <br>
<br>
All unranked candidates have higher ranks than the monsters.
One can then rank the monsters by how terrible they are. <br>
<br>
Basically, it is a way to vote against monsters in Condorcet
without having to rank all of the hundreds of also-rans. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
all this is complicated crap that gunks up elections. it has an
ice-cube's chance in hell. <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
I've been observing experimentally how people use a Condorcet
election system in practice over the past ten years (since 2003)
and in fact the use of a dummy candidate to signal approval has
become increasingly common. It seems to be intuitive, at least to
web users, and effective. I do agree that trying to distinguish 0
vs. 1 is probably overly complicated. <br>
<br>
-- Andrew <br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://electorama.com/em">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
You could say "Rank all candidates you approve of" or even "List the
candidates you like in order of preference. Ignore all other
candidates." Such a ballot would be easier for the average voter to
understand and fill out. If there are fifteen people running for
office, and you like three, hate three, and don't know anything
about the remaining nine, you can just say the equivalent of
A>B>C, and ignore the rest. No dummy candidate would be
necessary Sure, it wouldn't give as much information as a ballot
that has all of the candidates ranked, but it would make certain
forms of strategic voting (such as burying) more tedious and less
attractive.<br>
<br>
Then just use the ballots to find the Condorcet winner. Such a
ballot could be used with Approval-Completed Condorcet or Ranked
Approval Voting, or any other completion method that takes into
account Approval votes. For example, you could say "If there is a
cycle, compare the two candidates with the lowest Approval score in
the cycle, and drop the pairwise loser. Continue until there is a
single winner." Or whatever.<br>
<br>
Mike Rouse<br>
</body>
</html>