Hi, James G-A wrote: > Mike has recommended CWO as an improvement on Condorcet-wv > (although he does not see the improvement as an urgent one. Is > there anyone who thinks that adding CWO to ranked pairs or beatpath > would be a bad idea? Anyone else who thinks its a good idea? The > more people weigh in, the better.
I don't know how Markus Schulze feels about CWO now, but a few years ago he wrote that it would be catastrophic. His argument did not make sense to me. He warned that candidates in the top cycle would make a deal that changes the winner and that that would be terrible. But in my opinion, that would be like vote-trading within a legislature, or like a majority coalition that selects the prime minister and cabinet in a parliamentary system. Markus also provided a nifty example that showed that CWO doesn't entirely eliminate the fear of being a spoiler. I think CWO is much more urgent as a patch for IRV or Plurality Rule than as an improvement to Condorcet. > The rest of this e-mail is my reply to Mike. > >>I believe that it was Steve Eppley who pointed out that the CWO, for >>Plurality, would be very helpful for getting rid of strategy problems, >>without asking for a change in the actual voting system. > > How would CWO work with plurality? Ranked ballots? Right. A lot of candidates would need to withdraw, though. CWO could also be used in Presidential elections to deal with a problem of the Electoral College. [Historical note: I used two other names for CWO: "just-in-time withdrawal" and "well-timed withdrawal."] --Steve ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
