The basic standard properly is that each voter gets the SAME opportunity to take part in an election as every other voter.
Having a vacation address, etc., must not earn you an extra chance.
Given the same selection of choices, as required, does not violate 1P1V for a voter who opts for a simpler or more complex choice among those offered.
That a method may allow voters to vote for more than one candidate, as Approval does, is acceptable - provided each voter has the same opportunity.
One condition I would apply to methods - a method too complex for many voters to understand should properly be rejected for this defect.
This rule clearly accepts Plurality, Approval, and Condorcet. IRV might be open to debate for the possibility of strategic voting - and that perhaps being considered to be too hard to understand. Some of the more complex methods described on EM and elsewhere certainly deserve rejection - if the voters have trouble understanding how they work, they do not belong.
Dave Ketchum
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 07:49:59 +0000 MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
--Those who use the 1-person-1-vote criterion (1p1v) have repeatedly been asked to justify it in terms of something more fundamental, something other than a rule-criterion.Apparently they aren't going to. It can only be assumed that they admit that 1p1v can't be justified. As I said, a rule-criterion won't be accepted on EM as a fundamental standard, and therefore needs justification in terms of something more fundamental than itself. Mike Ossipoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
