>This might be a stupid question but I was wondering if >SociallyBest exists at all, and if some day it will be found.
I can think of only the Clarke-tax as the next best thing. It is voting with money, and the good feature of it is that sometimes you really have to pay that money, so it motivates people to vote sincerely if they are intelligent enough (which I'm not stating). Every voter indicates for every candidate, how much money that candidate worths for her/him over the worst one. (Only the difference matters.) The candidate with the most indicated money wins. Then for every voter we count which candidate would have won if this vote had not existed. If this hypothetic result equals the real one, the voter don't have to pay anything. But if the hypothetic result differs (they say "the vote happens to be a pivotal vote") the voter must pay to the treasury the minimal sum of money which would have been enough to change the hypothetic result into the real one. (You can figure out that if we required the full money difference which the voter indicated between the hypothetic candidate and the real one, it would not fully motivate the voters to be sincere.) Peter Barath _______________________________________________________________________________ Kiadós akció! 40% engedménnyel kínáljuk az Európa Könyvkiadó több mint hétszáz kötetét webáruházunkban kedden és szerdán. http://ad.adverticum.net/b/cl,1,6022,158433,222557/click.prm ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
