On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Bart Ingles wrote: > > Forest Simmons wrote: > > > > Joe Weinstein argues the advantages of unconstrained CR style ballots > > below. I would like to add my two bits worth. > > > > Most of the arguments against the use of CR ballots are based on the > > misguided assumption that the only way to use CR ballots is to give the > > win to the candidate with the highest average rating. > > One argument against CR ballots actually uses the opposite assumption. > Since CR ballots can be used as input for any rated or ranked method, > they invite the possibility of lawsuits from any group which favors a > different method, or which simply doesn't like the outcome of a > particular election.
Kind of like Olympic spectators believing that figure skating medals should go to the fastest figure skaters. > > Of course the same argument applies to ranked ballots, to a lesser > degree. Lesser degree precisely because the possibilities are fewer. > > Bart > I long for the day when the pendulum swings towards this "opposite assumption" because that will indicate a level of interest and awareness that we haven't yet begun to approach. Forest > > > That assumption is tantamount to believing that the only way to use ranked > > ballots is to give the win to the candidate with the highest average rank > > (the Borda winner). > > > > Note that CR ballots can be used for head-to-head comparisons > > (generalizing Condorcet methods). > > > > CR ballots can be used to find the candidate with the highest median > > rating (generalizing Bucklin). > > > > There are many other uses of CR ballots. Lorrie Cranor uses CR ballots > > as input for her Declared Strategy Voting (DSV) methods. > >