Dave Ketchum wrote:
A few thoughts:
Plurality or Approval cannot fill need.
IRV uses about the same ballot as Condorcet - but deserves
rejection for its method of counting.
Condorcet can - but I am trying to word this to also accept other
methods that satisfy need.
Range does much the same, but needs better words than I have seen
as to how, simply, to rate SoSo when ranking would be Good>SoSo>Bad.
Method needs to be understandable by voters (I read compaints about
handling of Condorcet cycles - I claim that they do not need to be
ubderstood in detail - mostly that discussing frequency and effect
should satisfy most).
The methods that inspired this missive claim to offer some,
possible valuable, benefits - at a cost that may be prohibitive - leave
them to audiences who agree the benefits are worth the cost.
If Schulze's too complex, use MAM (Ranked Pairs) or River. These are at
least easy to explain. If people are very concerned about FBC, then
perhaps MDDA - though I don't know it does with respect to the advanced
criteria (like clone resistance).
Schulze does have the advantage of wide use, at least compared to the
two other methods here. While I don't know if potential legislators
would lend any weight to its use in computer related organizations, the
others haven't much of a record at all.
One other thing to note is that some multiwinner elections in New
Zealand uses Meek STV. Not exactly the simplest to understand of
methods, so it may still be possible to get complex methods through.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
