Kristofer, thanks for your comments and suggestions.<div><br></div><div>Here's one more ... spell out the number names in old fashioned check writing style:</div><div><br></div><div>Zero, One, Two, Three, Four, ... , Ninety-eight, Ninety-nine, One-bundred.</div><div><br></div><div>Make this long form code optional as you suggested.</div><div><br><br>On Saturday, February 13, 2021, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <<a href="mailto:km_elmet@t-online.de">km_elmet@t-online.de</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 13/02/2021 03.29, Forest Simmons wrote:<br>
> It pains me to see all of the ranked ballot proposals that unnecessarily<br>
> limit preferences to three or four alternatives because of ignorance of<br>
> simple higher resolution ballots that can be easily marked and read (by<br>
> hand or by machine) without ambiguity or confusion from poorly formed<br>
> characters, stray marks, etc.<br>
<br>
I have an impression that the problem is not real, but imagined: that<br>
it's possible to do unlimited ranked ballots in practice without much<br>
difficulty. Otherwise, the jurisdictions that currently use STV would<br>
have encountered the problem and dealt with it already.<br>
<br>
So the problem is more one of perception: it seems obvious that unclear<br>
ballots are going to be hard to read, regardless of whether they<br>
actually will. And so, as a precautionary measure, the method gets<br>
limited to a few ranks.<br>
<br>
(There may also be technology-specific limitations, e.g. the<br>
jurisdiction in question uses mechanical voting machines that can't be<br>
adapted to more than this many ranks.)<br>
<br>
> A method that allows only three or four candidates to be ranked cannot<br>
> satisfy clone independence ... the only indispensable justification for<br>
> scrapping First Past the Post Plurality. And (beyond that) it<br>
> exacerbates the biggest IRV/STV/RCV defect, the high likelihood that<br>
> one's choices will be completely exhausted before the final rounds<br>
> unless you rank lesser evils at the expense of alternatives you like<br>
> better, because of ranking limitations that highlight the effect of<br>
> premature eliminations.<br>
> <br>
> It is alleged that because of ambiguous handwriting and lack of room for<br>
> more than a few "bubbles," only a handful of distinct ranks can be allowed.<br>
> <br>
> But what if each bubble has a different value?:<br>
> <br>
> [8] [4] [2] [1]<br>
> <br>
> The rank of a candidate is the sum of its darkened bubble values ... a<br>
> number between zero and fifteen.<br>
<br>
I think these would confuse quite a few voters.<br>
<br>
I'd probably just go with ordinary numbers and be fairly confident it's<br>
going to work out. But if the problem is indeed one of perception, then<br>
just saying "don't sweat it" isn't going to convince anyone who's sure<br>
there will be problems.<br>
<br>
Perhaps a study on ballot rejection rates would help provide evidence<br>
that it works well most of the time? I seem to recall reading on<br>
Reddit's EndFPTP forum that ballot spoilage rates are about the same for<br>
FPTP and STV.<br>
<br>
> Suppose that there are to be 26 candidates, then instead of indicating<br>
> their relative ranks with mere numbers, you can order them with standard<br>
> alpha numeric code words ... Alpha1, Bravo2, Charlie3, Delta4, Echo5,<br>
> Foxtrot6, ... Victor22, Whiskey23, Xray24, Yankee25, Zulu26. So the<br>
> military already solved the ambiguity/ "noisy channel" commuunication<br>
> problem in the early days of Morse code.<br>
> <br>
> These 26 code words cannot be confused with each other no matter how<br>
> illegible the hand writing.<br>
<br>
Of the two suggestions, I think I prefer this one. You could make this a<br>
minimal change by saying that a voter may use either ordinary numbers or<br>
codewords, so that voters who want to be extra sure that their ballots<br>
will be counted properly can use the codewords, while others may opt out<br>
if they think it's not worth the hassle.<br>
<br>
> These suggestions are intended for absentee and other mail-in ballots<br>
> ... electronic voting machines should allow in person voters to drag the<br>
> names into a list in any order, and then print out paper copies for<br>
> voter and precinct receipts.<br>
<br>
I'd prefer voting machines to be "Expensive Pencils" where the voter can<br>
input preferences and have a paper ballot printed out, and where that<br>
paper ballot is what gets counted. A voting machine is opaque; a<br>
printout is not.<br>
<br>
To mitigate chain voting, the machine could show the printout behind<br>
glass and deposit it directly into either the trash or the ballot box<br>
depending on the voter's choice. In addition, such a scheme would keep<br>
fingerprints and DNA off the ballot paper.<br>
</blockquote></div>