One of the authors of the Satisfaction Approval Voting paper responded to your comments, which I'd forwarded to them:
"I consider it [SAV] a very simple system--comparable to approval voting--and to fix its alleged flaws would, in my opinion, considerably complicate it without necessarily producing a better result (however this is defined)." I tend to agree, although I've not studied the issue enough to be 100% certain. There is a lot to be said for simplicity, additive feature, compatibility with existing voting systems and ballots, auditability, understandability, etc. So far, I think I would recommend both SAV and the party list system as proportional representation systems but am open to finding others too. Kathy On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[email protected]> wrote: > Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: > >> Now, you may say that the second problem is analogous to STV's Woodall >> vote management (don't vote for a candidate that would otherwise win), > > I meant, of course, Hylland vote management. Woodall vote management > involves prefixing the vote with preferences for no-hopes, and as such isn't > relevant in this context. > -- Kathy Dopp http://electionmathematics.org Town of Colonie, NY 12304 "One of the best ways to keep any conversation civil is to support the discussion with true facts." Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf Voters Have Reason to Worry http://utahcountvotes.org/UT/UtahCountVotes-ThadHall-Response.pdf View my research on my SSRN Author page: http://ssrn.com/author=1451051 ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
