Stephane Rouillon wrote:
You can use graded ballots in ranking methods, too. Forest advocates this on the grounds that people are familiar with it and it prevents the confusion about whether 1 is the lowest or the highest ranking.> *** You can only vote at most once for the winning candidate. ***A good thing and this is why I prefer ranking methods to grading methods.
Yet, 1P1V should be ***You can only vote at most once for any candidate at anyThat sort of strikes me as a perversion of the phrase for the benefit of IRV. Or perhaps, for the denigration of Approval. I mean, who cares (for the purposes of the spirit of 1P1V) how the electoral system cranks through all the names on a ranked ballot or on a list of approved candidates? All that matters is that, at the end of the election, I don't have a way of making my vote more powerful than someone else's.
time*** with the generalization of splitting your vote in fractions that sum up
to one.
How about this phrasing:
***A voter can have at most one vote that contributes to the election of a candidate.***
By the way I wrote it, IRV, plurality, and Approval clearly pass, and Borda clearly fails. Condorcet is a funny case because there are many (n squared, minus n, divided by two) contests going on at once, but clearly 1P1V is maintained in each one.
-Adam
----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
