At 07:57 PM 11/3/2009, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
thanx,
The question is quoted below. It's a loaded question. Kathy Dopp is
an election security expert, and doesn't necessarily "promote" any
voting system, but she'd like the system to be precinct summable, for
sure. She is also aware of the other issues caused by
non-monotonicity, and the peculiar and nauseating LNH satisfaction
(see the original paper in which Later No Harm was defined, what's
his name?) of STV, and I assume she'd be likely to support Approval,
Range, Bucklin, or possibly a Condorcet-compliant method, which can
be matrix-summed, and it's likely that most elections wouldn't
require even that.
r b-j
On Oct 31, 2009, at 12:18 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Oct 31, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
5. It always amazes me how irrationally the supporters of IRV/STV
support a nonmonotonic system that creates more problems than it
solves when there are clearly better alternatives available that
actually solve more problems than they create.
so, Kathy, i am curious as to which of these better alternatives
you promote?
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
