On 2004-04-05, Bart Ingles uttered: >In general, it's a good thing. However the NEED or INCENTIVE for >strategic voting is sometimes a bad thing, if it results in Duvergerian >equalibria (Plurality, Runoff, Instant Runoff), or in artificial ties >or "random" outcomes (Borda).
Quite. But I would also stress the fact that no voting system will solve all of our problems. Democracy isn't a solvable problem, though it is an interesting one. From my own libertarian background, it seems necessary to delimit democracy to problems where one voting system or another can serve us, instead of against us. The point is, most (sensible, speaking from a social choice/math standpoint) voting systems probably have their area of application. But more often than not the debate over specific voting systems starts with problems that are caused by a malapplication of democracy. Algorithms which include a component of geographical representation serve as a particularly salient example, since they aim at solving a problem which results from a geographically overbroad application of democracy. Such concerns lie squarely in the arena of public choice economics, so they probably fall off the subject area of this list. They have to do with the wider institutional implications of democracy, in its many forms. But still, they probably limit what people should discuss on this list. As we well know, all democratic decision-making processes have certain flaws. We should perfect them, but they will still have certain flaws. That is why we should also probably limit the discussion on-list to subjects that have nothing to do with the wider implications of voting systems. Needs and incentives in the wider political sphere are just two examples. As I see it, there are three levels of looking at voting systems. The first is the pure social choice stance represented by e.g. Arrow's theorem. The second consists, in addition, of tactical analysis. The third then covers the total societal consequences of democracy and our chosen voting system. I think needs, and incentives, and the need thereof lie in the third sphere. I don't think they're actually relevant to this list. I obviously need to discuss what the needs and lack of them would cause (in the second sphere) but any normative statements regarding them seem to me to be outside the scope. -- Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], tel:+358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2 ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
