Welcome to the Electorama list. -- Even without Chicago style voting (vote early, vote often) in this phone poll, the small response rate (about 1.5% of the population) and rumors about two polarizing front runners made the results especially sensitive to sample/participation bias. That effect would probably bias the results for just about any election method. -- Depending on the insightfulness of your friends, your estimates are probably a closer approximation to what a random sample poll would produce. -- To the extent that creating a participation bias resembles the behavior of honey bees, some might argue this poll was really a form of range voting. However, I think the honey bee example confuses political activism/campaigning with voting. -- The debates, sometimes heated and emotional, about which is the best election method have morphed into debates, sometimes heated and emotional, about which is the most important election criterion. Arguably, this represents some measure of progress. -- There is no best election method. Preferences for various election methods ultimately are a matter of personal preference, which may be situational. -- There is no best election method criteria. Preferences for various criteria ultimately are a matter of personal preferences, which may be situational. Criteria do sometimes highlight meaningful differences between various election methods, but there is also sometimes an element of inventing or reinterpreting criteria to prove one's favorite election method really is best. -- I've offered some critiques of the basis for Bayesian Regret as used in IEVS as an election method criteria / evaluation measure. Look at the some of my postings and related threads in the EM archives during the last month or two if you are interested. Likewise there are good critiques of using Condorcet winners as a election method criteria / evaluation measure. See the preceding item. -- IEVS evaluation of strategy comparisons is weak, in part because the strategies IEVS uses vary significantly in how optimum they are for various election methods. A meaningful comparison would also have to consider other factors as well such as what kind of information is available, how much cooperation there is within groups of individuals that prefer a given outcome, what the risks are of using a given strategy, and what are the costs and benefits, other than the election result, for using a given strategy. I'm not aware of any decent attempts to create a good framework for such comparisons. -- The contest using plurality voting was probably considered a great publicity / propaganda success from RTP's perspective. Any popular attention on which dead king, poet, explorer/colonialist (or here in the US, which emerging entertainer, celebrity wannabe dancer, or tropical island castaway) is/was best, is popular attention directed away from what the politicians are doing. In that regard, television in many modern societies has, I suppose, largely replaced religion. -- If it motivates even just a few people to become interested in and better informed about the available election methods, there may come some good from it after all.
-- David Cary ____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367 ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
