2011/6/1 Dave Ketchum <[email protected]> > On Jun 1, 2011, at 3:57 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: > >> [email protected] wrote: >> >>> It seems to me that thevoters are more worried about the ballot type >>> and ease of voting it than they are of the exact counting rules. >>> There are several Condorcet methods that are clone proof and >>> monotonic without being too complicated. >>> >> > Let's start by narrowing the field: > > Let's not. Choosing a voting system is a trade-off, and using a single argument to eliminate a system or class of systems from consideration is not helpful.
I'm sure I could come up with some honest, logical arguments against your choice of systems, whatever that may be. The point of choosing a common proposal to put forward, while still supporting a range of systems, is that just arguing leads nowhere. A common proposal is not going to satisfy everyone. But it absolutely must be extremely simple to understand. I've seen four proposals in this thread that pass that test for me: - Approval - DYN - Condorcet/Approval - Minimax Condorcet I'd suggest a fifth: - MYND - that is, just DYN, with a two-way runoff if there's a (M)ajority failure, or if the second-place majority-approved candidate demands it. This is essentially a "work it out, guys" threat to keep any negotiation between near-clones grounded in the voters' will, as all of the above are in some way vulnerable to a game of chicken between supporters of near-clones. None of these are my favorite systems in theory, but any of them would be a huge practical step up from plurality. I would still enthusiastically support more-complex systems, but I don't think that they're the most efficient use of our advocacy energy. JQ
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
