rmoore4 at home.com
Sat Apr 14 09:33:57 PDT 2001
Whether or not they do well, having them on the list means that there will
be a broader range of voter utilities which (in my opinion) makes the
more interesting. So I'll play the devil's advocate and nominate all
MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
> Richard wrote:
> Sounds like a race between all the good methods. But if we really want it
> to be interesting shouldn't IRV, Borda, and Plurality be on the list as
> I reply:
> Of course you could nominate them, but no doubt they won't do well,
> especially if even their advocates don't nominate them. I suspect
> the reason why IRV, for instance, hasn't been nominated is because
> IRV advocates know that it wouldn't do well, and they'd much rather
> that it not be mentioned in this poll than have it receive a really
> poor showing in the poll.
> Of course it would be interesting to find out how IRV, Borda, &
> Pluarality do. But it's also perfectly ok to take their non-nomination
> by their advocates as
> a sort of surrender. Should we accept IRV's surrender, or should
> we nominate it to show how it will do? It's up to you, because
> anything can be nominated. Either is fine with me. Non-nomination
> would look very much like a bad poll-showing for IRV, it seems
> to me. It goes without saying that nominating a method doesn't
> mean that you like it.
> By the way, I want to nominate an additional method: SD.
> SD stands for Sequential Dropping. SSD is a refinement of SD.
> SD says:
> Drop the weakest defeat that's in a cycle. Repeat till there's an
> unbeaten candidate.
> [end of definition]
> Markus has pointed out that SD can be nonmonotonic. But that doesn't
> disqualify it as something to fight IRV with.
> What SD has to recommend it is the fact that it's the simplest,
> most briefly-defined, method that completely dominates IRV in
> As I said, CR has been nominated too.
> Mike Ossipoff
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
More information about the Election-Methods