Superfluous simplicity in aggregate functions

Refrigerators. We all know how to use them: we put things in, close the door and it keeps them cool for us. How many of us know how they work? Go ahead, draw me a diagram. When you’re done, see how it compares.

My point here is that it’s not really common knowledge. The mechanically curious might have a better idea, but it isn’t expected that the average person know the inner workings of our appliances, only how to use them.

Let’s say you had to build a refrigerator with what you know now. What’s the best you could do? Chances are the average person could throw together an ice box. Not bad, but certainly inferior to the product produced by professional engineers.

Knowing this, consider what would happen if engineers were restricted to only designing fridges that everyone could understand. We’d probably be stuck with something little better than the makeshift icebox. Doesn’t seem like a reasonable constraint, yeah? It doesn’t really matter how it works so long as it’s simple to use and the information is available to anyone with the curiosity and aptitude.

That being said, I feel that electoral reform has this unfair expectation that improved aggregate functions be sufficiently simple that the average person understands it in the first go. What’s more important is transparency of process and fair results.

• The ballot should be sufficiently simple for the voter
• The ballots should be easily tallied by hand
• The process of converting the tallies to winning candidates should be transparent and reproducible by those with the curiosity and aptitude.

So long as those constraints are met, we’re free to explore better systems without unnecessary handicaps.