Clearly JL knows a lot more about voting methods than I do. I defer to his greater knowledge. Nevertheless, I still think this should go 2 rounds, assuming some higher power doesn't step in and choose, which is both possible and kosher in my book.
On Oct 14, 8:16 pm, Jonathan Lundell <[email protected]> wrote: > On Oct 14, 2010, at 5:05 PM, Martin.Mulone wrote: > > > > > how about having 5 votes?. and you can add or delete your vote, but > > only you have in total 5 votes. 5 votes or 3,6,9,etc. > > Cumulative voting (this) or approval voting (vote for as many as you like, > but only one vote for each candidate) are conceptually simple, but they > introduce a rather nasty strategy issue: voting for anything but your single > favorite can hurt your favorite's chances. > > That said, approval voting is not a bad idea for an informal poll like this, > and it'd be easy to implement: simply remove the restriction that a voter can > only vote for one candidate, and add the ability to "unvote" for a candidate. > > A ranked method, either a Condorcet method like Schulze, or single-winner STV > (usually called IRV or AV) are better choices (though there's a kind of > religious war between the Condorcet and STV camps, or at least a subset of > them). > > OpenSTV, a Python-based vote counter that I sometimes contribute to, supports > both.
