In a different conversation your words could be useful.
This one is on a different topic:
WDS enthusiastically makes many assertions, expecting us to respond as if
they express solid truth.
I suspect many of them, but lean on one where facts are available - he
claims NY's lever machines are capable of doing "range (with single digit
scores)" with no modification required.
From the web pages he refers to, NY machines are able to handle 300
candidates in plurality method which would handle 30 candidates his way -
and a general election could be expected to have more than 30 candidates -
beyond his capacity.
Now, after the debate about assertions, there could be a discussion as to
compromises to shoehorn range voting into these machines - and your words
could be useful.
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:51:57 -0400 Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote:
At 04:01 AM 8/16/2005, Dave Ketchum wrote:
It has heard of NY and lever machines - exactly what I vote on and think
about. Says they are able to handle elections with up to 300 candidates.
With range chewing up slots 10 times as fast as plurality, capacity
shrinks to 30 candidates.
This assumes that the granularity is 10 or ll, depending. Range reduces
to Approval with granularity 2 and requires only one slot, same as
plurality. (no vote is zero, a vote is 1).
Adding improved granularity requires an additional slot per granularity
unit per candidate, *unless* multiple slot presses per candidate are
allowed, which would *add* the slot values together. I am concerned
about the complexity of voter education here, but it might not be so
bad. The instructions might say something like "Press additional levers
to refine your rating, maximum rating is 7". And then the slots would be
labelled "4", "2", and "1".
If this were practical (and voter education is the only issue, it is
practical for the machines, I am sure), then granularity 8 would require
three slots, granularity 16 would require four. Four would not be bad at
all.
But if additive voting were considered impractical, then simply having
two slots would be a refinement on Approval. One slot might be labeled
"Top" and the next "Acceptable." And they could be interpreted either as
simple Approval with additional information for later analysis, or as
Range (or, indeed, as Asset). granularity eleven (which is what requires
ten slots) is probably overkill, and definitely not politic to propose
at this time. Granularity 4 (two slots) could be enough, 8 would be more
refined, and 16 (four slots) really could be overkill.
--
[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
