Re: Ranked Choice Voting -- San Francisco Style

From: Steve Chessin <steve_dot_chessin_at_sun_dot_com>
Date: Wed May 05 2004 - 19:17:12 CDT

>From alan@openvotingconsortium.org Wed May 5 14:24:08 2004
>From: "Alan Dechert" <alan@openvotingconsortium.org>
>To: <voting-project@lists.sonic.net>
>Subject: Re: [voting-project] Ranked Choice Voting -- San Francisco Style
>Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 14:23:47 -0700

>> A voter will most likely want to "undo" their last selection, without
>> clearing the others. Consider Cambridge, Massachusetts, with 9 city
>> council seats and 20 candidates. A voter who accidentally picks the
>> wrong 10th candidate isn't going to want to hit "clear" and then
>> re-enter 1-9 all over again. The interface needs good human factors.
>> And it needs to be similar to the other interfaces. For example, in
>> a "Vote for 3" race, if I make a mistake on my third selection, I can
>> clear (deselect) it without affecting the other two selections.
>>
>I think we agree that we need lots of Human Factors testing to find the best
>way.

Yes. Two of the three DRE companies that competed for Santa Clara
County's business demonstrated IRV capability. I remember that
Diebold's did allow you to deselect as I described. I don't remember
what Sequoia's did.

>BTW, I know you had some concern about traffic to your inbox when we signed
>you up for this list. I think I told you 4-5 messages per day .... actually
>the historical average at that time was probably around 7 per day. So it
>turns out it's running 40-50 messages per day. I hope you are managing this
>okay.

I'm thinking of unsubscribing unless you get a "digest" option.

--Steve
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Mon May 31 23:17:18 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:16 CDT