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 Wed May 5 14:24:08 2004
>From: "Alan Dechert" <>
>To: <>
>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

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

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

= 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