Jameson Quinn Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 2:00 AM
If I'm right, the claim is that voters, and especially
politicians, are intuitively concerned with the possibility
of someone winning with broad but shallow support. In
Approval, Condorcet, Majority Judgment, or Range, a
2011/9/22 James Gilmour jgilm...@globalnet.co.uk
Jameson Quinn Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 2:00 AM
If I'm right, the claim is that voters, and especially
politicians, are intuitively concerned with the possibility
of someone winning with broad but shallow support. In
Approval,
Dear all,
I agree with James, and that was why I proposed that election reform
took the path through added election rounds.
Reform of FPTP would thus add a second election round where the
Condorcet winner would meet the FPTP winner. Who in the UK would
object to that?
I described also how to
2011/9/22 Peter Zbornik pzbor...@gmail.com
Dear all,
I agree with James, and that was why I proposed that election reform
took the path through added election rounds.
Reform of FPTP would thus add a second election round where the
Condorcet winner would meet the FPTP winner. Who in the UK
On 9/22/11 12:40 PM, James Gilmour wrote:
I cannot comment on the quoted remark (cut) that prompted your post
and I know nothing at all about the activities of anyone at FairVote,
but you have hit on a real problem in practical politics in your
comment above - the problem of the weak
Hi Jameson,
I think the multiple round system (as described in my previous email
today and several others) might be a the best way to get combined
support for one single method on this list.
If we skip the issues about political support for the method, I think
a good method that everyone
Hi Jameson,
I think the best reform proposal would be FPTP and the other method
in a two round system.
This is certainly not complex and run-off elections are held
everywhere in Europe, except for some larger islands of the coast of
France :o).
The disadvantage of introducing a new method is,
2011/9/22 robert bristow-johnson r...@audioimagination.com
On 9/22/11 12:40 PM, James Gilmour wrote:
I cannot comment on the quoted remark (cut) that prompted your post and I
know nothing at all about the activities of anyone at FairVote, but you have
hit on a real problem in practical
2011/9/22 Peter Zbornik pzbor...@gmail.com
Hi Jameson,
I think the best reform proposal would be FPTP and the other method
in a two round system.
This is certainly not complex and run-off elections are held
everywhere in Europe, except for some larger islands of the coast of
France :o).
From: James Gilmour jgilm...@globalnet.co.uk
I don't think I would have a problem with C winning here, if the votes were all
sincere. But that's the problem. They might not be. A and B supporters might
just be putting C ahead of their perceived main rival. I suppose this is
similar to the
Hi Jameson,
Well i think the argument that two-rounds systems are silly and
complex, can be countered with the fact that it is used all throughout
Europe and elsewhere. I woud say runoff elections are the standard way
of conducting single member elections. Even though I have no data for
this
2011/9/22 Peter Zbornik pzbor...@gmail.com
Hi Jameson,
Well i think the argument that two-rounds systems are silly and
complex, can be countered ...
I'm going to cut in right there. The problem is, you don't always get a
chance to counter your opponent's arguments. If anti-reformers can run
Many people on this list agree that Condorcet methods are good methods. But
they are not necessarily good for whatever needs. Using them in single-seat
districts of a two-party system might not be a good idea. We might end up
having majority of the representatives from a small centrist party.
Peter Zbornik Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 6:41 PM
I agree with James, and that was why I proposed that election
reform took the path through added election rounds.
Reform of FPTP would thus add a second election round where
the Condorcet winner would meet the FPTP winner. Who in
robert bristow-johnson Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 7:00 PM
On 9/22/11 12:40 PM, James Gilmour wrote:
But suppose the votes had been (again ignoring irrelevant
preferences):
48 AC
47 BC
5 C
C is still the Condorcet winner - no question about that. But I
doubt
Jameson Quinn Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 7:38 PM
And while I don't take everything Richie says at face value,
he does have more experience than basically anyone else at
promoting voting reform, so it would be unwise to entirely
ignore his point of view. I believe that he honestly
Toby PereiraSent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 8:11 PM
From: James Gilmour jgilm...@globalnet.co.uk
But suppose the votes had been (again ignoring irrelevant preferences):
48 AC
47 BC
5 C
C is still the Condorcet winner - no question about that. But I
doubt whether
Peter Zbornik Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 9:04 PM
Well I think the argument that two-rounds systems are silly
and complex, can be countered with the fact that it is used
all throughout Europe and elsewhere.
Yes, and the French Presidential election of 2002 showed us very clearly
2011/9/22 James Gilmour jgilm...@globalnet.co.uk
Peter Zbornik Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 9:04 PM
Well I think the argument that two-rounds systems are silly
and complex, can be countered with the fact that it is used
all throughout Europe and elsewhere.
Yes, and the French
19 matches
Mail list logo
