Previously, I wrote:
CB:In step 1, why did you specify that voters only rank the candidates "they would be willing to support"? What the hell is the "approval cutoff" for? Pardon my tone, but I have no sympathy for the stupid tendency to want to confuse ranking with rating.To which you responded:
"I don't understand your objection... How do you propose this system work without an approval cutoff?"
CB: My second question above was a sarcastic rhetorical question, purely related to the first question.
It was meant to emphasize the point that both restricting voters to only ranking candidates "they would be willing
to support", and also having an approval cutoff, is redundant and silly.
So I don't "propose this system work without an approval cutoff".
KV: "But I'm not so sure that Approval-Elimination Runoff (what is described at the top of this message) meets Participation. I can sort of imagine one's vote preventing a candidate from winning at a certain stage (by increasing the amount needed for a majority), causing a less-liked candidate to win afterwards.
The fear of this possibility, I think, is what would cause people to up-rank compromises, and possibly create multiple majorities. But I don't see a good way of fixing this without inviting cycle-related problems. I might also add that I see it as an asset that "AER" does not require the notion of "pairwise contests" (let alone "cycles") to be understood." CB:I think Participation is very important criterion,which trumps the Condorcet criterion. I agree with your last sentence, especially as it relates to cycles. Chris Benham
