Does the Method Confirm the Majority Winner?

[New Democracy]

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
first count?

     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.

Don

Donald Eric Davison of New Democracy at http://www.mich.com/~donald

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -