[fwd: missent] Tom Ruen wrote: > My point is a runoff process works to identify strong candidates and so this > should be a minimum reform over plurality. Agreed. Plurality is sick, and IRV would be a good deal better. If it's a choice between IRV or Plurality I'd prefer IRV - but I'd prefer Condorcet or Approval more. > Methods like Approval can work too, and more simply perhaps, but it is still > not very helpful in my opinion when there are 3 strong candidates. It is > still a game of chicken. Just like IRV, as you said yourself. At least in approval we won't crash and elect the second-worst candidate - we'll elect a compromise candidate who has broad support. Plus you don't need to lie to play the game. > About random ballots, here's a fun PR system for gamblers. > Give every voter > 100 points to distribute among all their choices as they like. Then add all > the points and pick a winner randomly in proportional to votes obtained. > This throws majority rule out the window as no candidate is guaranteed > victory without 100% of the vote. PR system? It looks like it's a single winner system to me - where's the proportionality? It is also identical to Random Ballot in results - though conceptually somewhat different, and harder to implement. The best strategy is to give all your points to your most preferred candidate.
