[EM] publicly acceptability of election methods

[Russ Paielli]

Kevin,

First, did I really write "publicly acceptability" in the title? I 
always seem to manage to goof up something.

Kevin Venzke stepjak-at-yahoo.fr |EMlist| wrote:
> Russ,
> 
> Ok, let me consider CDTT methods in this context.
> 
> --- Russ Paielli <6049awj02 at sneakemail.com> wrote:
> 
>>What is too complicated? Nobody knows the exact answer to that question, 
>>of course, but let me tell you what I think.
>>
>>I think you can forget about any method that cannot be explained in two 
>>or three sentences understandable by persons of average intelligence. 
>>Maybe that can be stretched to four sentences, but that's really pushing it.
> 
> 
> Suppose there are no majority-strength cycles. Those are supposed to be
> rare, right? So say there are none.
> 
> Then CDTT,FPP can be defined as "elect the FPP winner, except that when more
> than half of the voters rank X>Y, then Y can't win." Or perhaps better, "Elect
> the candidate with the most first preferences over whom no majority ranks
> any other candidate."

My apologies, but I don't recall what CDTT stands for or how it works in 
general. Would you mind reminding me or pointing me to an earlier 
explanation (or just give me the date of your introductory post on it)?

By the way, please don't feel slighted in any way. After all, you 
apparently first proposed the RAV (Ranked Approval Voting) method I am 
advocating (except for my simplification of disallowing ranking of the 
unapproved candidates). Would you consider supporting it if we call it 
"Venzke Voting"? 8^)

--Russ