> Replying farther down: > Greetings, > > MikeO is again subjecting us to his tirads on Choice Run-Off(IRO) - he > is against it. > There is no fear that people will embrace the cat's offerings, most > people are sensible. But in an effort to give some balance to this current > debate that has been dragged onto this list, I would like to offer my order > of the different single seat election methods. My list is ranked according > to the highest number of times each method will give us a majority winner. We've already discussed Don's deluded notion of what a majority is, a majority fabricated by the rules of his method. > > 1) Choice Run-Off(IRO) > 2) Top Two Run-Off > 3) Condorcet > 4) Approval Voting > 5) Plurality(FPTP) > > It should be noted that if the count of the first choices would give > us a majority winner every time we would not need any of these methods. > But, because we do not always get a majority on the first count we are > seeking some method which will give us a majority winner. We should keep in > mind that the point of using some method is the quest of a majority winner. You're of course free to invent your own goals, but you're mistaken if confuse your goals with other people's standards. > In other words: The main requirement of a method is to produce > majority winners. > > Plurality does not claim to give us a majority winner. The lead > candidate is the winner. The position of being the plurality winner has no > special value in our quest for a majority winner. > > Approval Voting is not much better than Plurality because most of the > time it will not give us a majority winner. The supporters of Approval > Voting attempt to get around the lack of a majority problem by changing the > defination of majority, but this can lead to all the candidates getting a > majority. Wouldn't thkat be nice if every candidate were that popular. Don't count on it, though. done > Approval has another major flaw. Your second choice will be used to > help defeat your first and most preferred choice. > > Condorcet is better than Approval Voting because Condorcet should give > us a majority two out of three times. That third time, Condorcet gives all > candidates a majority. Our quest is looking for something better than this. > > Top Two Run-Off will give us a majority winner every time, except the > rare case of a tie between the top two candidates in the run-off election. > But Top Two Run-Off does have a flaw. When there are four or more > candidates in which two or more are eliminated at one time, it is possible > to eliminate the wrong candidate. The rule is that when two or more > candidates are to be eliminated at the same time, the sum of the votes of > the dropped candidates must be less than the votes of any one of the > remaining candidates. > > Choice Run-Off only eliminates one candidate at a time, therefore it > will not be eliminating the wrong candidate - this is a big improvement > over Top Two Runoff. Besides, Choice Run-Off only needs one election vs two > elections for Top Two Run-Off. Choice Run-Off also has means to solve any > tie between two or more candidates. > It goes without saying, Choice Run-Off will give us a majority winner > every time. > Remember, the main requirement of a method is to produce majority winners. > > Choice Run-Off(IRO) is head and shoulders better than Top Two Run-Off, > but Mike comes to the reverse conclusion - MikeO is wrong. > Choice Run-Off will give us a majority winner every time - Plurality > will never give us a majority winner, but MikeO concludes that Plurality is > better than Choice Run-Off - MikeO is wrong again. > > MikeO is often wrong, but in this case we can be kind to him and blame > the means he used to reach his conclusions. MikeO used two of the methods > as standards to compare the other methods. I quote MikeO: > "... it looks as if Runoff is clearly better than IRO, if it means > anything to elect a CW--or a CW that's a plurality winner." > > MikeO is using the Condorcet Winner(CW) and the Plurality winner as > measures. When MikeO did this he gave himself away - he is showing us that > he does not know how to compare apples and oranges. When we compare apple > to oranges we cannot use the apple nor the orange as a standard to campare > either fruit. Likewise we cannot use Condorcet nor Plurality nor any of the > election methods to compare the other methods. > The position of being the Condorcet winner or the Plurality winner has > no special value in our quest for a majority winner. Some of the Condorcet > and/or Plurality winners will become majority winners and some will not. > The best that can be said for MikeO is that "it was not his fault - he > was let down by his standards". MikeO was in bad company. > Runoff is not clearly better than IRO and it means nothing to elect a > CW -- nor a CW that's a plurality winner. > > Choice Run-Off is the best of the single seat election methods and any > community that is thinking about changing to Choice Run-Off is taking a > positive step towards election reform. > The Center for Voting and Democracy is correct in their effort to > promote what they call Instant Run-Off Voting(aka Choice Run-Off). > > Regards, > Donald Davison > > > \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ > /// N E W D E M O C R A C Y /// > \\\ Home of Citizen's Democracy http://www.mich.com/~donald \\\ > ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > > > >
