Hi Ted,
>Is this another example of your Freudian typography, John? :)
I've warned you about this before :-)
> > I've always been of the view that there ought to be a 'Don't know'
> > or 'I cannot choose' option on the ballot papers.
>
>It should be called the FATLOT option (this is an acronym).
>
>More transparently: "None of the above".
To be serious, if one wanted to maximise the amount of information obtained
from voters, one would probably have to be very careful in choosing the
'question', and maybe would ideally present two or more 'non-candidate'
options. In particular, it might be useful to be able to distinguish
between those situations in which a "None of the above" response was the
result of a considered decision by an informed voter (i.e. (s)he had
studied all the possibilities and didn't like any of them) and the
situation in which the voter was insufficiently informed, inclined or
intellectually able (that one would need careful wording!) to make a decision.
Kind Regards,
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 (0) 1296 730225
Mediscience Services Fax: +44 (0) 1296 738893
Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Buckingham MK18 4EL, UK [log in to unmask]
----------------------------------------------------------------
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|