On May 25, 2011, at 9:17 PM, [email protected] wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Kristofer Munsterhjelm
Being who I am, I would either pick Ranked Pairs or CSSD
(Beatpath,
Schulze): the former if it's more important that it can be
explained
easily, the latter if precedence is more important.
being that they choose the same winner in the case that there are only
3 candidates in the cycle, i would recommend Tideman over Schulze
(sorry Marcus) for the simplicity of explanation. while getting a
Condorcet cycle is expected to be rare enough, how often in real
elections in government, would you expect a situation where RP and
CSSD will arrive at a different result?
...
It's true that historically and even recently ranked systems have
been adopted here and elsewhere. But
these successes are infinitesimal in comparison to the failed
initiatives.
Why have the initiatives failed? Overwhelmingly because the voters
have rejected the idea of ballots that
require ranking of candidates.
"The single affirmative vote." a religious position, but it's more
honest than misrepresenting another principle: "One person, one
vote." the most effective political sign was probably "Keep Voting
Simple".
what these people say they don't wanna do is vote for *anyone* other
than their choice of candidate. it's like ranking their contingency
vote as #2 will somehow hurt their #1 choice (as it would with
Borda). then (with IRV) they find out that their #1 choice actually
hurt their #2 choice by helping the candidate they hated the most.
this is why i'm kinda mad at FairVote. by equating the Ranked Choice
with Hare/IRV, when IRV screwed up, they sullied the ranked ballot for
all other cases.
--
r b-j [email protected]
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
