Hi Forest, We can't call SC "Maori" because the acronym isn't descriptive of the method.
--- En date de : Jeu 21.7.11, [email protected] <[email protected]> a écrit : > Too bad we cannot discard even more information, like the > fact of a majority winner that isn't one of the > contestants in the contest picked by the approval votes. Yes, that's disappointing. But apparently it's not just politically unacceptable to ignore a majority favorite. It appears to wreck the results, too. > If it weren't impractical, the ideal mode for this election > would be an approval vote for the explicit purpose > of determining who would be in the runoff, and a later trip > to the polls with only those two names on the > ballot. No, that wouldn't work. You would not be compelled to vote the runoff consistently with your approval vote. SC works because if you want to defeat a particular contest (because your candidate will lose it) via insincerity, you will have to do this by disapproving your own candidate, which is not a promising strategy. It might work in rare circumstances, but it's not like there is one thing that the entire faction can agree to do. > Another thought: make the single contest between the > approval winner A and the candidate B with the > most approval on the ballots that did not approve A. > If B's total approval is less than the number of > ballots on which A is approved without B, then no runoff is > needed. Actually, I mentioned that very method in my post. Kevin Venzke ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
