2011/6/3 Kathy Dopp <[email protected]> > Jameson, > > The number two (2) is *not* arbitrary. It is the next integer after > the number one (1). Therefore, two is the next simplest number of > candidates to allow voters to vote for after the number one, since we > cannot vote for portions of candidates. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_One_Infinity
I am using the programming analogy not to suggest that it would be hard to code your suggested system. I mean that your suggestion itself is buggy, in terms of giving consistently good results. You yourself pointed out why - candidates could just vote for no-hopes. But the no-hopes would not return the favor, so the no-hopes would win. Say 51% of voters support A, and 49% support B. A supports C, B supports D, and C and D support each other. Result? C wins, if there is even one vote for C or D! Jameson
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
