Forest Simmons said: > If the method yields a "beats all" combination, then that combination > is by definition better than any other combination according to > whatever standard of "better PR representation" is being used in item > (2) above.
I guess that formulating a criterion for "better PR representation" will be addressed in a subsequent post. The other major question that I see is resolving cyclic ambiguities, although the stakes aren't as high as in single-winner races because all of the M-member lists in the innermost unbeaten set will presumably satisfy a large number of voters. Question: As interesting as it is to contemplate PR via Condorcet or Approval, what are the odds of the public accepting these methods? Although the public uses computers, airplanes, and medications without understanding the inner workings, they will probably demand more transparency from an election algorithm. I suspect that if we ever have PR on a wide scale in this country it will be implimented via open party list (perhaps using Approval Voting within each list), cumulative voting, or limited voting. I suppose STV might be implimented, but only because the most visible election reform organization in the US seems to be CVD. Alex ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
