Geographic Open List/Delegated (GOLD) voting: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

VisualWikitext

Inline

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 == Technical note: codes for "write-in" (non-local) candidates ==
-One good way to allow "write-ins" of any non-local candidate would be for each candidate to have a unique three-digit code. To "write in" a candidate, one could check boxes corresponding to their three-digit code, plus an additional box for their party. These codes could be assigned such that minor "mistakes" in a valid code, such as adding or subtracting one from any digit or exchanging two adjacent digits, would lead to an invalid code, and one that was dissimilar to all other codes of candidates from the same party. In that way, minor ballot mistakes could be corrected. (The level of such error correction that is possible depends on the size of the states, but it could be quite good for all but the largest states.)
+One good way to allow "write-ins" of any non-local candidate would be for each candidate to have a unique numeric code. To "write in" a candidate, one could check boxes corresponding to their three-digit code, plus an additional box for their party. These codes could be assigned such that minor "mistakes" in a valid code, such as adding or subtracting one from any digit or transposing two adjacent digits, would lead to an invalid code, and one that was dissimilar to all other codes of candidates from the same party. In that way, minor ballot mistakes could be caught and even corrected. (The level of such error correction that is possible depends on the size of the states, but it could be quite good for all but the largest states using three-digit codes. The larger states could choose between a reduced potential for error correction, and using four-digit codes.)
 Using such a mechanism, a voter could simply "write in" a party but not a specific candidate. This would be considered as a vote for an eliminated candidate for that party, using "partisan" transfer.