On May 7, 2010, at 6:40 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
2010/5/7 Juho <[email protected]>
My intent was to propose a nonbinding poll which would be conducted
on the same ballots as, and thus simultaneously with, the actual
election. Any valid vote would be interpreted as an answer in the
poll, but this answer could be overridden by the voter, either to
add subtlety, or effectively to say what part of the actual vote was
strategic. This proposal flows from the realization that
expressivity and outcome utility are separate values, and that
forcing them together sometimes brings them into conflict.
I understand that some might argue that this proposal would hurt
legitimacy. What if the election winner was not the poll winner?
Personally, I'd argue that if this is true, it's better to know it.
Either way, the society would get a better understanding of the true
legitimacy of the winners. With a good system, disagreements would
be rare, and so legitimacy overall would increase; and when they
occurred, they could be an important, though symbolic, check on the
mandate of a winner who's true legitimacy is weak.
One could claim that TTR is a better system than IRV since TTR
collects less information and therefore there is less basis for
complaining about strange end results (e.g. not electing the Condorcet
winner). :-)
Juho
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
