Difference between revisions of "Public Acceptability Criterion"

From Electowiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
The Public Acceptibility Criterion is not a true criterion as such, but more of a measure of how easy it will be to get the public to understand and adopt a new voting method.
 
The Public Acceptibility Criterion is not a true criterion as such, but more of a measure of how easy it will be to get the public to understand and adopt a new voting method.
  
As suggested by Russ Paielli:
+
As suggested by [http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-March/015302.html Russ Paielli]:
  
 
:By the way, let me suggest another "criterion" for public acceptability.  If voters have an election method carefully explained to them for, say, five or ten minutes, then most of them should be able to accurately paraphrase the rules on the first try. And they should also be able to do it days or weeks later, perhaps with only a brief one-minute refresher.
 
:By the way, let me suggest another "criterion" for public acceptability.  If voters have an election method carefully explained to them for, say, five or ten minutes, then most of them should be able to accurately paraphrase the rules on the first try. And they should also be able to do it days or weeks later, perhaps with only a brief one-minute refresher.
 +
 +
Not a bad starting point.  Anybody care to add more?

Revision as of 11:16, 25 March 2005

The Public Acceptibility Criterion is not a true criterion as such, but more of a measure of how easy it will be to get the public to understand and adopt a new voting method.

As suggested by Russ Paielli:

By the way, let me suggest another "criterion" for public acceptability. If voters have an election method carefully explained to them for, say, five or ten minutes, then most of them should be able to accurately paraphrase the rules on the first try. And they should also be able to do it days or weeks later, perhaps with only a brief one-minute refresher.

Not a bad starting point. Anybody care to add more?