(1) I disagree with Tim F. that straying from "one person one vote" will
open Pandora's box. The idea of voting is to add my input into who
holds a particular post. My input is severely limited by the one-vote
method unless there are only two candidates, or there is only one
candidate I want (or can tolerate). As soon as there are multiple
candidates the one-vote method seems dumb because it would be so easy
for me to give a much more accurate indication of my preferences by a
method that still allows easy tabulation by voting machines.
I am often faced with a situation in which I could easily support two of
three candidates, but not the third. I would be greatly relieved if we
ranked votes because I would almost always be confortable giving a
one-vote to one of my choices, a two-vote to the other of my choices,
and no-vote to the guy I don't like. It seems so simple.
(2) I agree with Tim that negative votes aren't necessary and might even
be construed as nasty. I think giving zero votes to candidates I don't
like sends the appropriate message without making it appear I have the
power to negate someone else's vote. I realize that it is just
semantics because my +1 vote for a candidate essentially negates someone
else's +1 vote for my candidate's opponent. But that doesn't strike
people as bad as if I actually had the power to take votes away from a
candidate.
Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemistry and Physics
Bluffton University
Bluffton, OH 45817
(419)-358-3270
edmiston@bluffton.edu
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l