At 01:31 AM 5/3/2006, Matthew Welland wrote: >I don't follow the logic perfectly but looking at the example it seems that >intuitively "A" is the choice that would leave the least number of people >unhappy and since no-one has contradicted you I will go with that. > >I think it would be interesting in a range of polls to have people rank the >comparative results of plurality vs approval vs condorcet etc.. Maybe it has >been done before. If anyone has pointers to such an experiment I'd be >interested. If it hasn't been done perhaps I can build it into my site. Of >course that begs the question - which voting system to use to measure the >quality of the voting system!
The fact is that the very concept of a voting system, except for the simplest (which is not Plurality), is deeply flawed. These results show that. A is a *lousy* choice; the system requires that *some* choice be made, that a winner be declared, when obviously the electorate has not consented to A. The simplest election method is a standard motion to elect a named officer, requiring a majority for approval. Properly, other methods should be polling methods that provide the electorate with information. I claim that if leaders holding sovereignty in the name of the public are elected without the approval of a majority of the public, it is not really a democracy. It is a method which resembles democracy in some ways, but in this case it is functioning undemocratically. It is forcing a choice when the public is not prepared to make that choice. The core of democracy is deliberation and choice, not elections. Elections are a very poor method of implementing democracy. But polls are great, and using pairwise contests in polls is an excellent method of discovering the presence of a candidate who would be elected in that single Yes/No vote. The system, of course, must accomodate what happens if no winner has yet been found. Does the government shut down? Probably not. I prefer parliamentary systems, particularly if the parliament is fine-grained PR -- the finest grained PR being Delegable Proxy and Asset Voting should be almost as good -- because a parliament can much more easily agree on a caretaker officer. The *really* big problem with elections and fixed terms is the severe latency. You can have a candidate who wins on a technicality, against the wishes of a majority of the people, who then holds the office for four years and acts quite the same as if elected by a landslide, including going to war, etc., etc. Beware of any politician who calls himself a "Uniter." Dictators are uniters, and, in modern times, they have learned to use all kinds of psychological tricks and devices to accomplish it. Hitler was great at it. A true uniter facilitates broad agreement, not on his or her leadership, but among people, on the issues themselves. A true uniter is not the center of the unity formed, just a catalyst. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
