I think that Andy's question about who the PR winners should be in the three
winner (approval) scenario
20 AC
20 AD
20 AE
20 BC
20 BD
20 BE
needs more consideration.
As was pointed out {C, D. E} seems the best, even though PAV would say the
slates
{A,B,C}, {A,B,D}, and {A,B,E} are tied for best.
For those that lean towards {C, D, E}, would you go so far as to say it is the
best solution for the
scenario
40 ABC
40 ABD
40 ABE ?
If not, then how do we decide? If so, then how about
40 C>A1>A2>A3(at 90%)>>>(all others)
40 D>A2>A3>A1(at 90%)>>>(all others)
40 E>A3>A1>A2(at 90%)>>>(all others)
Should {A1, A2, A3} win? or should we continue with {C, D, E} ?
If I understand it, STV would elect {C, D, E}, while RRV (sequential or not)
would elect {A1, A2, A3}.
How would Warren's three district connection solve this problem?
I'm not saying that these scenarios are likely, but I think we need a clearer
idea of what we want in these
extreme cases when we are designing and evaluating practical methods. "The
exceptional cases test
the rule," which is the original meaning of the aphorism, "The exception proves
the rule."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
