Does the Method Confirm the Majority Winner?
donald at mich.com
Wed Apr 16 02:01:17 PDT 1997
Dear List members,
Mike Saari wrote:
>The point I am trying to make is: IF a situation can be fairly described as
>a standard Gaussian distribution on a single variable only, THEN it is
>reasonable that the voting paradigm should select the most central candidate.
Don writes: OK - I now see a point - I was more interested in defending
Steve's Instant Consensus.
The single variable you speak of should have a number of its own and
not be assigned a number. I am at a loss to think of any factor pertaining
to the election of a candidate that also has a number.
In the same vein - I would like to suggest another test an election
method should face. Does the method confirm the majority winner of the
If on the first count of the ballots we have a majority winner the
election is over - there is no need to proceed with the single seat method
- whatever it may be. BUT! - if we were to proceed with the method anyway,
would the results always produce the same winner?
Only two methods will pass this test - Instant Consensus and Condorcet.
Apporval Voting, Borda, and Coombs cannot pass this test.
Donald Eric Davison of New Democracy at http://www.mich.com/~donald
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More information about the Election-Methods