Kevin,
First, did I really write "publicly acceptability" in the title? I always seem to manage to goof up something.
Kevin Venzke stepjak-at-yahoo.fr |EMlist| wrote:
Russ,
Ok, let me consider CDTT methods in this context.
--- Russ Paielli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What is too complicated? Nobody knows the exact answer to that question, of course, but let me tell you what I think.
I think you can forget about any method that cannot be explained in two or three sentences understandable by persons of average intelligence. Maybe that can be stretched to four sentences, but that's really pushing it.
Suppose there are no majority-strength cycles. Those are supposed to be rare, right? So say there are none.
Then CDTT,FPP can be defined as "elect the FPP winner, except that when more than half of the voters rank X>Y, then Y can't win." Or perhaps better, "Elect the candidate with the most first preferences over whom no majority ranks any other candidate."
My apologies, but I don't recall what CDTT stands for or how it works in general. Would you mind reminding me or pointing me to an earlier explanation (or just give me the date of your introductory post on it)?
By the way, please don't feel slighted in any way. After all, you apparently first proposed the RAV (Ranked Approval Voting) method I am advocating (except for my simplification of disallowing ranking of the unapproved candidates). Would you consider supporting it if we call it "Venzke Voting"? 8^)
--Russ ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
