> It is not a truncation. It is interpreting FPTP ballots as if used
by Condorcet voters.
I'm having trouble viewing the ballots from the states that continue to
use FPTP any other way except as ranked ballots truncated to one
ranking. What am I missing here?
> We claim Condorcet offers all voters equal power - even if we have to
demand
> some reinterpretation from the courts - and some updating of laws if
that gets involved.
I'm afraid that this comment completely misunderstands my post. See below.
> If you are referring to laggard states not offering their voters the
full ability that is
> offered and that voters in compliant states get - go beat on the
laggard states.
This is exactly what I'm referring to. I was specifically *not* saying
that Condorcet-compliant methods themselves could violate
one-person-one-vote. That's not the case.
--Bob
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:51:55 -0700 Bob Richard wrote:
> 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?
It is not a truncation. It is interpreting FPTP ballots as if used by
Condorcet voters. Should result in pressure on all states to conform
ASAP.
I am ONLY considering FPTP and Condorcet The exact Condorcet method
cold be stated in the amendment. Note that this is only a single
national election, though there would be extreme pressure on other
government uses of Condorcet to conform.
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.
We claim Condorcet offers all voters equal power - even if we have to
demand some reinterpretation from the courts - and some updating of
laws if that gets involved.
If you are referring to laggard states not offering their voters the
full ability that is offered and that voters in compliant states get -
go beat on the laggard states. The intent is to expedite full
compliance without demanding such.
DWK
--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
--
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
