--- On Fri, 6/3/09, Michael Allan <[email protected]> wrote: > Juho Laatu wrote: > > > (I limit the scope of discussion to > > single-winner elections, and exlude > > primaries and other party internal > > candidate selection and hierarchical > > proxy based methods.) > > > > . . . > > > > One approach is to use a candidate > > tree where the votes (to individual > > candidates) are summed up in all > > the branches to see which branch, > > sub-branch and candidate wins. > > This would allow very high number > > of candidates. > > Is this approach in scope? A tree is a hierarchical > structure, and > its nodes are proxies.
I was thinking something like: Votes: - A=3, B=4, C=5, D=6, E=5 Tree: - Democrats: A, B, C => 12 votes - Republicans: D, E => 11 votes - Right wing Democrats: A, B => 7 votes Results: - Democrats have more votes than Republicans - Right wing Democrats have more votes than C - B has more votes than A - B wins (The biggest problem in this method may be that the Republican voters didn't have any say on which wing of the Democrats wins.) Juho > > > From: Fred Gohlke <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [EM] language/framing quibble > > > > > > My purpose is to devise a practical method of > asking the > > > people of Owego who they want as their mayor. > > Fred Gohlke's approach would also be out of scope. > Practical > Democracy is tree based. It is also (emphatically) a > primary. > > -- > Michael Allan > > Toronto, 647-436-4521 > http://zelea.com/ > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
