In a message dated 8/6/01 8:12:06 PM, Mr. Simmons wrote:
<<A zero to ten "Olympic" range ballot can be the basis for head-to-head
comparisons similar to the head-to-head comparisons of Condorcet methods.>>
----
D -
The theory again- on an *absolute scale* a choice can get a plus 100 percent
rating to a minus 100 percent rating.
With computerized voting machines the voters could in theory make such plus
100 to minus 100 ratings for each choice.
However, a minority of voters (circa 5 percent of all voters) can barely vote
a simple X (for a variety of reasons) --- See the various reports floating
around on the internet about the 2000 President votes fiasco in Florida and
various reforms being proposed.
Quite a while back I noted that a scale ranking system could use twice the
number of choices.
Example ---
4 choices
Highest 8 to 5 (plus 100 to zero rating), Lowest 4 to 1 (zero to minus 100
rating)
The problem with all the various reform election methods is that for ANY of
them to get adopted in the U.S.A. (with the current vast low level of
political knowledge therein), it or they must be *more than a little simple*
--- i.e. barely more complex than a simple plurality X vote.
I have thus suggested that only something like a simple YES/NO combined with
number votes (1 = first choice, 2 = second choice, etc.) even remotely has a
chance of getting adopted in the near future in the U.S.A.
A simple 100 to 0 scale vote might also have a chance for adoption ---- with
some major public education for marginal *dummy* voters that 100 would be the
highest (and NOT the lowest).
Note to non-U.S.A. folks on this list--- the political intelligence level
seems to be getting lower and lower in the U.S.A. (due to such things as
color TV, video games, a zillion TV cable channels (with lots of mindless
junk), etc. and shows up in so-called public discussions about various issues
by *politicians* / candidates.
