On May 14, 2010, at 2:44 AM, clay shentrup wrote:
On May 13, 7:08 pm, Dave Ketchum <[email protected]> wrote:
I see deciding to use Condorcet as important. To go with that we
would need to decide how to resolve cycles.
Why would you go with Condorcet when Score Voting is better in every
way?
You had quoted RBJ:
Clay, you should remember me when i was berating Rob and company at
FairVote.org. you might also know that i'm not much of a Score or
Approval sympathizer. Score requires too much information from the
voter (they'll need to bring dice or a spinner to the voting booth)
and Approval too little (not expressive enough). both present the
voter with a tactical dilemma right away, if the voter likes a
candidate, but approves of more. voters will likely Score their
favorite 99 and the others as 0 (and "not approved") and then either
Score or Approval will degenerate to FPTP.
The Ranked-order Ballot requires just the right amount of information
from the voter, and Condorcet is the correct way to tabulate it.
We can dream of value in details as we sit here and debate. Real-life
voters need a way to express their most serious thoughts with
reasonable effort:
To vote for more than Plurality's one - which even Approval
offers.
To vary their approval according to their amount of liking -
Condorcet and Score offer this.
To ask for only reasonable effort from the voters - see Condorcet.
Score demands more. A voter thinking of A>B>C>D has no trouble
offering min and max ratings to A and D. With Score the voter is
expected to diligently assign the available rating space among A>B,
B>C, and C>D.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
