[EM] Multiple Same Choices

Mike Ossipoff dfb at bbs.cruzio.com
Tue Feb 27 03:09:52 PST 1996

Demorep, the method you describe has been "Point Assignment", or
"Point Ratings". Where the points can be from 0 to 10, it could
be called the Olympic 0-10 point system, or "Olympic 0-10".

As I've said, Olympic 0-10 would be a good choice if voters would
only accept something that's already familiar to them. But 0-10,
or any other such point assignment method is nowhere near as good
as Condorcet's method, because, as you yourself said, Point Assignment
requires defensive strategic voting, and Condorcet's method never requires
it under plausible conditions.

Again, you propose (presumably an implementation of) Pairwise-Count
only if Point Assignment returns a tie or doesn't show a majority. And,
again, I ask why you want to use a not-as-good method as the primary
method, and a better method only as the tie-breaker.

You still continue to not address the comments about the need for
defensive strategy, and the electoral reformers' wish for  a method
that lets us cast a full-strength, reliably-counted vote for Compromise
over Worst, while still casting one for Best over everyone.


And, about your implementation for picking a candidate who beats
everyone, why do you still propose that procedure, with its long
& wordy definition, when the candidate who beats everyone can
be picked by a very simply & briefly stated rule? Whether the
procedure you describe, with test winner, test losers, & test
other losers, would actually accomplish that, I admit I don't


Mike Ossipoff


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list