On 9.6.2011, at 4.51, Dave Ketchum wrote: > On Jun 8, 2011, at 1:32 PM, Juho Laatu wrote: >> On 8.6.2011, at 16.15, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>>> 2. Voters submit approval ballots, with up to two write-ins. "Do not >>> delegate" is a valid write-in. >> >> Your definition seems to define also the used ballot format. That's ok >> although often the formal descriptions of methods don't cover this. Note >> that most countries of the world don't use the write-in option. Is this a >> recommendation that if they start using SODA they should support write-ins >> in general or that they should have a write-in slot to support the "do not >> delegate" feature? >> > Nothing said here of ballot format except for being Approval and capable of > two write-ins. "Do not delegate" is a command entered as if a write-in. I was thinking about the write-ins. They were actually mentioned already in the previous bullet, but this bullet said that there should be two such slots. I guessed that if there are such write-in slots, maybe there is also an assumption that regular candidate names are listed next to the write-ins. I could at least guess what kind of ballot was intended. Alternatives to what I described above could include ballots and elections that do not recognize write-ins (I guess write-ins are not an essential part of the SODA method anyway). One could also e.g. vote based on candidate numbers and white ballots to write those numbers in. I thus considered the ballot format that I imagined based on the description to be maybe one good approach but not the only possible or mandatory format for SODA. Juho ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
