A, B, C, and D are having an ice cream party, and trying to decide between Chocolate, Vanilla, Strawberry and Rocky Road. They decide to try ranked voting: (oh this is going to look like hell in here) A B C D Choc 4 0 3 4 Van 2 0 4 0 Straw 1 3 1 0 RRoad 3 4 2 0
A says "I like chocolate best, then Rocky Road, then vanilla, and I'll have strawberry if that's what everyone else wants."
B says "I love Rocky Road, like strawberry, can't stand chocolate or vanilla."
C says "Vanilla is my favorite, followed by chocolate, then Rocky Road, and I guess I can eat strawberry if I have to."
D says "I just want chocolate, that's it. Nothing else."
Tally up the points across the rows, and we get: Chocolate: 11, Vanilla: 6, Strawberry: 5, and Rocky Road: 9.
A and D are very happy, C is okay with it, B is really peeved.
But watch what happens if you get some level of compromise:
B is really upset with the outcome, and says to D "Is there *nothing* else you'll eat?" and D realizes that well, actually, Rocky Road isn't so bad after all, if he really thinks about it, since it's mostly chocolate anyway, so D ranks Rocky Road 2nd, giving it 3 more pts.
And Rocky Road wins. Now B is very happy, A and D are pretty happy, and C can live it. And no one is really pissed off.
Straight plurality voting is actually pretty artificial. The above is the sort of give and take we do every day in our lives in social settings to make decisions that a group can live with. I think that if the voting populace can be shown that this isn't anything new, that they already know how to do it, and why, it'll be as easy as cake to sell.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Actually, it's a suggestion I've heard before ...
Date: 2004-10-18 10:08 pm (UTC)A, B, C, and D are having an ice cream party, and trying to decide between Chocolate, Vanilla, Strawberry and Rocky Road. They decide to try ranked voting: (oh this is going to look like hell in here)
A B C D
Choc 4 0 3 4
Van 2 0 4 0
Straw 1 3 1 0
RRoad 3 4 2 0
A says "I like chocolate best, then Rocky Road, then vanilla, and I'll have strawberry if that's what everyone else wants."
B says "I love Rocky Road, like strawberry, can't stand chocolate or vanilla."
C says "Vanilla is my favorite, followed by chocolate, then Rocky Road, and I guess I can eat strawberry if I have to."
D says "I just want chocolate, that's it. Nothing else."
Tally up the points across the rows, and we get: Chocolate: 11, Vanilla: 6, Strawberry: 5, and Rocky Road: 9.
A and D are very happy, C is okay with it, B is really peeved.
But watch what happens if you get some level of compromise:
B is really upset with the outcome, and says to D "Is there *nothing* else you'll eat?" and D realizes that well, actually, Rocky Road isn't so bad after all, if he really thinks about it, since it's mostly chocolate anyway, so D ranks Rocky Road 2nd, giving it 3 more pts.
And Rocky Road wins. Now B is very happy, A and D are pretty happy, and C can live it. And no one is really pissed off.
Straight plurality voting is actually pretty artificial. The above is the sort of give and take we do every day in our lives in social settings to make decisions that a group can live with. I think that if the voting populace can be shown that this isn't anything new, that they already know how to do it, and why, it'll be as easy as cake to sell.
Or as easy as ice cream.