[EM] RE : Ranked Preference benefits

[Kevin Venzke]

Juho,

--- Juho <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk> a écrit :
> Example 1. Large party voters consider C better than the other large  
> party candidate, but not much.
> 
> 45: L>>C>R
> 40: R>>C>L
> 15: C>L=R
> 
> Ranked Preferences elects L. (first round: L=-10, C=-70, R=-20;  
> second round: L=-10, R=-20)

In my opinion, if C is able to convince *every voter* to acknowledge
that he is better than the major party alternative, then C is surely 
not a bad result.

As long as truncation is allowed, and voters have the opportunity to
learn how the method works, I don't think "weak" CWs would be a real
problem. If they're not "good enough" to win at all, people should not
be giving them votes.

Kevin Venzke


	

	
		
___________________________________________________________________________ 
Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions ! 
Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expériences des internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/Réponses 
http://fr.answers.yahoo.com