> >/I prefer Smith//Condorcet, but accept that that is more complex to />/explain and sell and probably the most approved candidate />/will nearly always be in the voted Smith set. / > Do you mean Smith//Approval? Kristofer, Yes! Thanks for asking. Chris B. > *Kristofer Munsterhjelm*km_elmet at t-online.de > <mailto:election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20High5%20voting%20%28%7E%20Smith//Approval%20on%20a%20reduced%20set%29&In-Reply-To=%3C8e9ac208-f214-9a99-b8b7-23dc18dea22b%40t-online.de%3E> > /Sat Dec 16 06:12:57 PST 2023/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > On 2023-12-16 13:44, C.Benham wrote: > >//>/Why do at least several US Americans here think there is something />/problematic and/or weird about allowing both quite />/a large number of candidates on the ballot and voters to strictly rank />/exactly as many of them as they wish? />// > I guess it's partly that some US locations do this de facto anyway (e.g. > some places using IRV only lets the voters rank three candidates). And I > *think* that's due to legacy hardware? Optical scan machines that can > only read bubbles, and mechanical ones that can only read a certain > number of holes. > > I'm not sure, though. > > >/I prefer Smith//Condorcet, but accept that that is more complex to />/explain and sell and probably the most approved candidate />/will nearly always be in the voted Smith set. / > Do you mean Smith//Approval? > > -km