It seems to me that much of the discussion over "which method elects the best/worst/most mediocre candidate?" misses a larger problem:
In a system founded on the premise that the citizens control the government, the goal should be to present the voters with a broad range of choices in each election. OK, not so many that you get a 4-page ballot like San Francisco had last year (they voted on what type of coffee to allow, if I'm not mistaken), but enough so that it isn't just "same old vs. same old, with those other kooks that have no chance (aka Third Parties)".
The method used needs the ABILITY to handle a broad range of candidates, and to evaluate the voters' opinions about them.
While Plurality does well with two candidates, often there is only a single candidate of interest - and I see no reason that a more complex method would necessarily change this.
Likely that few have read this far unless they already agree it is time to get past Plurality.
We know that plurality nurtures a two-party system. Although there are variations within the parties (the Dems are home to Joe Lieberman and Dennis Kucinich, while the GOP is home to John Ashcroft and Lincoln Chaffee), and although some argue that the two parties are indistinguishable on issues that matter (a subject to debate elsewhere) one thing is clear:
In any given plurality election, it is almost certain that there are only two viable candidates, and while the viable candidates may differ from place to place, they are almost always from the same two parties, and each party strives to put aside differences and form a united front in the various legislative bodies (national, state, and local).
Now, whether you worry about turkeys, Hitler-Stalin-Washington polarized scenarios, lukewarm Al Gore bland inoffensive candidates, or whatever, I hope we all agree that it would be better to have more options competing in the marketplace of ideas. How to take steps toward this?
We know that proportional representation fosters multi-party systems. However, it is likely that single-winner election reform will precede the
implementation of proportional representation. Supporters of each method
say "Ours is the best for increasing competition in the marketplace of
ideas." Let's evaluate them:
Whatever merits PR may have for electing legislatures, we like single-winner elections for mayors and governors.
See Ranked Ballots below.
IRV- IRV has failed to achieve significant multi-party competition in Australia. There's been some progress, but PR has done a much better job. I think it is reasonable to ask whether other methods can do better, because IRV has proven to be a modest improvement but nothing to crow about.
True that equipment for Approval can be cheaper than for Ranked Ballots, BUT this happens to be a season for buying new equipment, for which fully-capable equipment should cost little more than semi-capable equipment.
Approval- Approval is largely untested in the real world. At best, it will lead us to a Utopia of multi-party competition. More likely, it will lead to a moderate level of competition, hopefully a little better than what IRV has given Australia. At worst, we'll still have a duopoly, sans spoilers (in the sense of people with 2% support tipping elections one way or the other). Moreover, Approval is cheaper than IRV in terms of voting equipment. Approval is therefore worth trying in public elections, preferably partisan elections and primaries rather than non-partisan local elections.
More difficult than Ranked Ballots for the voter debating whether to classify a marginal candidate as acceptable:
Approving is as strong as the most the voter can say for a truly desirable candidate - and could result in marginal defeating desirable.
Rejecting is as strong as the most the voter can say against a truly UNdesirable candidate - and could result in marginal losing to UNdesirable.
Puzzling to group primaries with partisan elections, for primaries are non-partisan just as are many local elections.
I group Condorcet with IRV in the following Ranked Ballot discussion.
Condorcet- Condorcet is largely untested in the real world. The prospects are probably the same as Approval, but Condorcet is more expensive and complicated. Condorcet should therefore not be seriously considered for public elections right now.
Ranked Ballots- both methods referred here from above share voting rules and let each voter indicate the most desirable candidate, followed in order of desirability by as many more as the voter chooses - the intent being that the counting shall pick the one most desired collectively.
IRV does not look at whole ballots, and thus sometimes does not see the most desired - resulting in horror stories.
Condorcet does look at whole ballots and does see the best liked - and sometimes raises talks of "turkeys" when it recognizes as rejects those WELL-liked by a few but DISliked by many.
Also produces a matrix identifying how well the candidates did in relation to each other. This should help in letting minor parties participate, for they can get in with a few votes without disturbing the major competition - and produce a record indicating how well the voters accept their platforms.
Can group near ties in a cycle requiring further analysis - annoying, but the cycle members are those preferred over the remaining candidates.
Borda- Don't even go there ;)
So, if your goal is competition rather than "filtering out the turkeys/polarizers/etc." then the basic question is "Can we do better than IRV?" Approval is an excellent method for examining that question, and the question is worth asking in light of IRV's under-performance in regards to competition. It could be that PR is the only way to really get multi-party competition going, but that's another topic.
Turkeys are discussed elsewhere, beyond my claim that what gets described as turkeys do not look that ugly to me.
I see Condorcet as noticeably better than Approval or IRV.
Anyway, just my $0.02 worth.
Alex
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026 Do to no one what you would not want done to you. If you want peace, work for justice.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
