> Some states may not be up to Condorcet instantly. Let them stay
with FPTP
> until they are ready to move up. Just as a Condorcet voter can
choose to rank
> only a single candidate, for a state full of such the counters
can translate FPTP
> results into an N*N array.
What would enforcing the truncation of rankings (to a single ranking)
for part of the electorate -- but not the rest -- do to the formal
(social choice theoretic) properties of any given Condorcet method?
Would the effect be the same for all Condorcet-compliant voting methods?
In fact, would this arrangement be valid for any ranked or cardinal
voting method? Arguably, in the U.S. your opponents could take this to
court as a violation of one-person-one-vote.
--Bob
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Was: Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
Is the Electoral College recognized as having lived ot its useful
life? If so, perhaps we could do up a worthwhile constitutional
amendment.
Should we not desperately try to get FPTP out of this?
I suggest three parts for the heart of this:
Like NPV we want to count a national election.
FPTP deserves burial - USE Condorcet.
Some states may not be up to Condorcet instantly. Let them stay
with FPTP until they are ready to move up. Just as a Condorcet voter
can choose to rank only a single candidate, for a state full of such
the counters can translate FPTP results into an N*N array.
DWK
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:27:50 +0200 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Jonathan Lundell wrote:
All of this would be finessed by the National Popular Vote idea:
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
It'd effectively result in a national FPTP plurality election,
hardly ideal, but definitely an improvement.
The Electoral College is, btw, a good example of a case in which an
election method has a profound and obvious effect on the nature of
the campaign. US presidential candidates have no motivation to
campaign in California, New York, Texas, and many other states (they
show up for fundraising events, but that's about it). If California
is close, Obama has surely lost the election, and similarly Texas
and McCain. The states in play vary somewhat over time, but I rather
imagine contain a minority of the electorate.
Could the national popular vote lead to a similar effect, only
opposite? The candidates would have an incentive to visit the cities,
because they could reach many voters in little time; and thus the
effect would move from being biased away from cities (in the large
states) to being biased towards them.
Better might be a weighted vote (but who'd set the weights?).
--
Bob Richard
Marin Ranked Voting
P.O. Box 235
Kentfield, CA 94914-0235
415-256-9393
http://www.marinrankedvoting.org
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
