On Jun 30, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Condorcet provides for ranked approval for more than one candidate.
This
DOES NOT justify trying to get voters to rank more than they approve
of.
And, while I write above for voters to learn about other candidates,
I do
not see demanding that they try harder to learn about strays.
It's worth rating everyone because if you wind up not getting any of
the ones you 'approve of' you can still have some say in which of the
rest of them you get.
For the partially informed voter, that might be adjusted to say that
it's worth voting on all the ones they have information on. On the 135
candidate ballot (CA-Gov 2003) I'd rank the 5-10 I had some opinion
on, and not just the ones I like, but the ones I dislike in order of
dislike because it could make a real difference to have Schwarzenegger
over McClintock.
Everyone here should get this immediately, and given that it can be
summed up in a sentence, I think it's reasonable to try and add it to
an educational pitch about Condorcet/Virtual-Round-Robin methods or at
least have it ready to answer the Frequently Asked Questions.
If "trying to get voters to ..." means forcing them to cast a full
ranking or their ballot is invalid, that's bad. Educating them about
their own self interest and how to cast the best vote possible, that's
good.
I imagine a voter education pamphlet with a line like:
"Voting for only one choice is bad. If that one doesn't win, you don't
get any say over which of the others might get elected. Vote on as
many choices as you feel informed enough to vote on."
Brian Olson
http://bolson.org/
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
