On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 5:46 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > In particular, such a highly proportional method is more > likely to be vulnerable to strategic voting.
In what way? > Personally I regard resistance to strategic voting to be > very important, and it should not be neglected just to > achieve what on the surface appears to be highly > proportional results. "Vote management" is the main strategic issue with PR-STV and Schulze's method is designed to be resistant. This shouldn't be a big issue for elections within a party. It requires voters to be split up into groups and vote according to instructions. I would hope that if a candidate tried to organise that, there would be a negative reaction within the party. Even with basic PR-STV, I don't think this is a major issue for internal party elections. > Another way to express this is to say that, as a voter, I > would rather choose to elect a competent leader whose > political views are slightly different than mine, rather > than elect a less-competent politician who claims to > represent the party I most prefer. I agree, but that is what PR-STV allows you to do. You rank the candidates in order of your choice. You can decide how to balance competence and political alignment. Other votes might decide on a different trade-off. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
