2007/8/18, Gervase Lam: > > > [With a reweight of 0 a] concern [is] that if you approve your > compromise > > candidate, who ends up being the most approved, you can weaken your > votes > > for your favorite candidate and cause him to fail to qualify for the > > second round. > > The ideal way to sort out this concern would be have the reweighting be > 1 instead of 0. However, having a reweighting of 1 means that a faction > could get a turkey candidate into the second round, as Chris has pointed > out. The compromise between a reweighting of 0 and 1 is 1/2! > Personally, I agree with dropping rule #2 but would keep the reweighting > at 1/2.
I devised an example where a reweighting of 0 results CW fail to run second round (>> is approval cutoff): 33: Right >> Center > Left 8: R > C >> L 7: C > R >> L 8: C >> R > L 8: C >> L > R 8: C > L >> R 7: L > C >> R 21: L >> C > R First count: R: 48; C: 46; L: 36 Second count: C: 38,5; L: 36 (IAR), C: 31; L: 36 (Chris' proposal) Under IAR, candidates from right and center compete in the second round, and centrist wins. Under Crhis' method, the competitors are from right and left, and rightist wins. I agree that dropping rule #2 is better. However, as Dave said, runoffs are expensive. In parliamentary systems, 50%+ support is sufficient to maintain a head of government, because this i thought a winner in same conditions is not a bad outcome. ________________________________ Diego Santos
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
