FWIW, I didn't consider 7 and 8 at all similar. After watching the strain the pre-vote discussion introduced, I decided making no statement as a project was the best outcome. But if the project were to make a statement, I wanted to express preference between the acceptable to me statements, then put the unacceptable to me options below FD.
Bdale On April 18, 2021 3:18:22 PM MDT, "Barak A. Pearlmutter" <ba...@pearlmutter.net> wrote: >The Schwartz set resolution algorithm is absolutely best of breed. But >there's an old saying in computer science: garbage in, garbage out. > >If we look at the actual ballots, it's really interesting. Options 7 >and 8 were semantically pretty much equivalent. It's hard to see any >reason for someone to rank them very differently. So if the voters are >rational, we'd think that nearly all ballots would have options 7 and >8 ranking either the same or adjacent. And that if one is ranked the >same as other options, then they should both be. Yet many of the >ballots rank one but not the other, or rank them very differently. >Some voters ranked either option 7 or 8 as "1" and allowed everything >else to default. It's very difficult to imagine someone who actually >preferred option 7 being equally satisfied with any of options 1-6 and >8. > >We tend to assume that the DD electorate is highly sophisticated and >rational and understand how to correctly express their preferences, >and how ranking works. But a quick perusal of the actual ballots has >disabused me of that notion. > >The usual reaction to this sort of thing is to alter the voter >instructions. But people have intuitions for how voting works, and >blurbs might not be very effective at changing their behaviour. > >--Barak. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
