Re: Diebold does PR? Why not us?!

From: David Webber \(XML\) <"David>
Date: Tue May 24 2005 - 14:49:49 CDT

Ron,

If we could just figure out what the County wants to do
we could propose something to them.

Actually - as David Mertz noted - its not so easy - because
tactical voting occurs between camps and candidates
(supporters of X agree to vote for Y as second preference, etc,
or more spohisticated - supporters of X and Y agree to vote
for Z as a third choice to prevent F being elected...).

Also - depending on the system - you probably want to vote
for every candidate you vaguely care about - since 10th's of
a vote maybe enough to elect one over another!

So - generally a weighting algorithm is applied - so each lower
choice is applied at a lesser ratio.

Anyway - someone just needs to pick a system.

The voting software can obviously use the user interface
to "stack" peoples selections from the on-screen ballot in a
frame at the top of the UI, etc. - and then print a summary
paper ballot for them to cast once they are happy with
their selections.

Actually - when I've used this method for opinion polls -
it is remarkable how quickly results converge even with
a small sampling from a large population. Very cool -
gives you high confidence in outcomes.

DW

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Crane" <voting@lastland.net>
To: "Open Voting Consortium discussion list" <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
Cc: "David Webber ((XML))" <david@drrw.info>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] Diebold does PR? Why not us?!

> > There are numerous other ways to score ranked-preference votes than
> > IRV/STV. Popular ones include Condorcet and Borda. Each voter still
> > assigns #1, #2, etc. How the ballots are combined is a different
> > algorithm. By Arrow's Theorem, *every* algorithm has its own
> > "paradoxes". But different people feel differently about the relative
> > strengths of the algorithms. IRV is probably easiest for everyday
> > voters
> > to -understand-. Condorcet is probably most resistant to "tactical
> > voting."
>
> I'll check out Arrow's Theorem. But I'd argue that IRV isn't so easy
> for non-techies to understand. I've chatted with a variety of other
> folks about it, and most found it at least a little confusing. Probably
> preference voting is the easiest to understand. In this system, the
> voter ranks each candidate's appeal from, say, 0 (awful) to 10 (great),
> and the candidate with the largest number of points wins.
>
> -R
>
>

_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue May 31 23:17:48 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 31 2005 - 23:17:53 CDT