At 01:58 PM 4/22/2007, Tim Hull wrote: >P.S. Under my "pro wrestler" example, I was assuming that the voter >would, under a range system, give the pro wrestler a 3 or a 2 out of >10, except for those who prefer them first. In this case, both IRV >and Range would not elect this candidate.
With that assumption, the analysis is correct. What this points out is how, to actually get reasonable outcomes, it is necessary to collect and use preference strength. And this, necessarily, involves violating the Majority Criterion in a single-step method. This is most important with single-winner. While preference strength does have the same kind of effect in multiwinner election methods, when representation is involved, it is important, in fact, to have first-place preferences be the ones chosen for the majority, preferably the large majority, of voters. And with first-place preference, strength is not so important. It still matters, though, when we get down to gathering the dregs, the scraps of votes left after nearly all winners have been determined. It's easiest to see, of course, for the last seat, since at that point the election has been reduced to single-winner. But it really begins to matter as soon as second-preference votes are being used. Asset Voting avoids the whole problem through a trick: it is not a complete election method, rather it creates a class of electors who then can use deliberative process (which includes negotiation) to complete the process. I would find it socially beneficial if student governments would experiment with advanced methods. Oddly, though, there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest. Are students today satisfied with the status quo? One would think not, but, then again..... we don't see a lot of interest from students. When I talk to them personally, they often like the delegable proxy ideas and the like (which, in the end, are, shall we say, anarchist-compatible without being *radical* except in the sense of stepping out of the box). But that has yet to translate into any action. What I've seen, perhaps, could be explained by a situation that I've mentioned before. People who want to reform democracy often have an additional agenda: they favor this or that political position. And setting up a totally open system -- which is what true democracy demands -- might not favor that! This is quite specifically the reason why democracy reform organizations are, typically, not democratically organized themselves. Democracy is for some other organization, not ours. We wouldn't want to be diverted from our purpose! The irony of this is mostly lost on them, I've described this situation -- which is not in doubt, it's clear -- and the result in one case was that, for no specified offense and without warning, I was banned from the relevant mailing list. Yet I believe that organizations have a right to be undemocratic! ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
