At 02:59 PM 11/22/2006, Juho wrote: >Wouldn't it be quite safe to e.g. arrange a Range poll/election and >then declare the winner if there is a winner that is at the same time >a Range winner, a Condorcet criterion winner and an IRV winner?
Yes. But what do you do if these do not coincide? Indeed, I've suggested using Range in this way, with a ratification or runoff if there is no coincidence of winners. > If >all these three criteria are met, maybe nobody would complain, and >there would be no need to use strategic votes in the initial Range >poll/election. If some of the conditions are not met, then the Range >poll/election would be called just a poll, no winner would be >declared, and further discussions/voting would be needed. That's deliberative process. With deliberative process, there is no artificial deadline for coming to a decision. Outer circumstances may create pressure, but the majority should be competent to determine whether or not it is more important to get a fast result or a deeply satisfying result.... ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
