On Nov 8, 2009, at 10:40 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Nov 8, 2009, at 7:50 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Nov 8, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Warren Smith wrote:
Tideman said IRV was unsupportable if it is feasible to compute
pairwise matrix. That was
because Tideman had other voting methods he considered clearly
superior to IRV and these methods used the pairwise matrix. By
"clearly superior" I mean, so superior in every respect, that
Tideman
felt there was no conceivable use for IRV, ever (in situations where
it was feasible to compute pariwise matrix) where that use could be
"supported."
That is what "unsupportable" means.
Tideman ranks IRV highest in resistance to strategy, and generally
better than the pairwise methods in lucidity
can someone explain to this layman what the metric "lucidity" is in
regard to election methods?
Generally speaking, the degree to which a method is understandable by
voters.
and cost of computation.
and why the cost of computation (as if it takes the official
computers 10 seconds to crunch the numbers instead of 5) is
important in modern times? it's not like the cost is O(2^N) or or O
(N!).
It's relevant in two ways, I think. One is wrt hand counting. The
other is actual computational complexity. I don't think that any of
the methods on Tideman's FPTP-replacement list are complex in that
sense, but there are certainly proposed systems (including Tideman's
own elaboration of PR-STV) that appear to be impractical to compute
with current technology and algorithms, in some cases.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
