At 09:57 PM 6/15/2013, Jameson Quinn wrote:
2013/6/15 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]>
At 07:52 PM 6/14/2013, Jameson Quinn wrote:
So. Abd and I now agree that a Bucklin system which uses just the
above-median votes to break ties is probably the best first step
towards median voting.
Let's stop saying it that way.
I'd be happy to. What do you propose, in 8 words or less?
A few more words, probably, particularly since you used more.
"Bucklin" is a ranked approval system, where approvals are categories
into ranks in order of preference. In a modern Bucklin system, voters
may categorize as many candidates in each rank as they choose, may
skip ranks, and candidates not voted for explicitly are considered
not approved for election. Votes are amalgamated by canvassing the
first rank, checking for a majority, and then proceeding to add in
the next ranked votes, in sequence, until a majority is found or the
ranks are exhausted.
This system can produce a multiple majority, and a concern when this
occurs is that voters may ahve over-enthusiastically added additional
approvals, not realizing that they were in the majority as to their
higher preference. Fear of this can discourage adding additional
approvals, and thus encourage majority failure. Hence, with this
proposed Bucklin variant, if a multiple majority is found, below the
first rank, the votes from that rank are removed from the totals and
the win is awarded to the majority-approved candidate with the most
votes in the previous-canvassed rank.
(If a majority is found in the first rank, to be explicit, the win
goes to the candidate with the most votes.)
However, I'm not *entirely* on board this. It violates long-standing
traditions about multiple majorities. I am willing to *consider* it,
under the limitation of a deterministic method. I've suggested we
need more data.
Both "ties" and "median" introduce concepts which are either complex
or unfamiliar.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
