At 08:48 PM 10/27/2003, Dave Ketchum wrote:
I read these two threads thru 2130 EST on Monday, but choose to respond to this original.
Looks like a GREAT idea, though a few details disturb me.
You talk of a primary customer, who would give their users some experience with Condorcet, but as individual voters with no choice as to details of the implementation.
Yes. My client doesn't really want to so much "give them experience with Condorcet", but simply to have a good way of doing polls that works better than plurality for picking multiple candidates. Their users are unlikely to be particularly interested in the theory. Some of them will, I'm sure, but the #1 goal is to make this seem every bit as simple to use and understand as the regular old plurality polls like you see all over the web.
*My* goal is somewhat different than my client's....I want to warm people up to Condorcet. But my approach aligns well with my client's interests.....make it seem simple. If it seems complex, it will drive people away.
I LIKE your goal, emphasizing a detail - it should not claim to be Condorcet unless it declares the winner that Condorcet would (recognizing that there are variations in how Condorcet is defined - just must pick one).
To both seem simple and be understandable, it needs to be simple (though resolving cycles may not be readily explainable beyond recognizing that they are near ties).
Doing that well takes what I consider to be an almost complete program, so I would lay out design for a more complete program, planning to implement only the subset for starters, and then completing the rest if/when that seemed worth the extra effort. Some details:
List of candidates - done by whoever sets up election. Can have long names but MUST have a unique label of not more than 4 characters, to allow for max quantities of candidates to be displayed in vote matrix.
You mean to avoid the problem of it making the tables too wide? There ARE some options, for instance http://weblogz.com/voting/vertical.html , but that is IE only. I think I can do something for mozilla et al but it won't be quite as pretty. (I tried something below it that would work on other browsers but its pretty ugly)
Certainly would not want you to exclude me by saying IE-only.
I'd hate to force the poll maker to come up with understandable names that are 4 characters max.
Note that I was not restricting name size - which could be as long as you are willing to tolerate - just asking for abbreviations for excessively long names. While I said 4, the limit on their size could be based on what would keep line length to what most users could display conveniently.
Vote - every voter can vote, so this must be easy - perhaps permit voter to use either full or above short labels - there are other possible methods. For a simulation mode, let "voter" vote as multiple voters choosing a vote pattern.
Having now looked at your demo, your picking method cares not how long the names are - I am still thinking of the matrix display.
Display ballot count matrix, as if this was last voter before polls closed. Could make sense to display this while the voter is voting, stepping as the voter goes thru ranking candidates from first to last voted by this voter. This ONLY starts with matrix as of voter starting to vote, incremented according to voter's current proposed vote.
Interesting idea with the dynamic updates.
Although honestly, I think only a small number of voters are going to be interested in seeing the matrix itself. I'm posting a response to another message ( Displaying intermediate results in Condorcet-based elections ) that covers my reasons for not wanting to show a matrix by default, and for continuing in my quest for a way to show a simple bar graph of scores.
-rob
From another post:
As for the utility of a graph of scores: such a graph has less information than a pairwise matrix, but that doesn't mean it is useless. I tend to look at the various "outputs" like this:But hard to manually decipher for more than a very few candidates.
Full set of ballots -- all information
Pairwise matrix -- lots of informationIncluding letting anyone compare any two candidates to see how many voters preferred each over the other (and how many considered neither worth ranking).
One score per candidate -- some informationPROVIDED you can get in more info than ranking provides. You can get in a bit more than ranking provides - you can show if #1 is liked MUCH better than #2 - but hard to explain how to read these scores.
Ranking -- little informationBUT, even in Plurality voting, ranking is often desired and often provided.
Single winner -- least information
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026 Do to no one what you would not want done to you. If you want peace, work for justice.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
