The Greater Majority Method

[Mike Ossipoff]

As I've often said, there are infinitely many count methods
for picking a winner from ranked ballots. So Don & Demorep
could keep this up forever. What's always missing from these
postings about new methods is any reason why they're supposed
to be better. According to what standards, principles or
criteria are those methods better? 

By the way, these guys have said that their methods are
better according to a standard that says to do what
the method does :-)  I dare say that any method is the
best when judged by such a standard.

No, the kind of standard that it makes sense to evaluate
& compare methods by is a standard that's widely agreed-upon
as important. A standard important to large numbers of voters
&/or electoral reformers. Or Don or Demorep could come up
with a new standard, and try to convince you that it's
an important one, important enough to make one of their
many methods the best. But what they seem to like to do
is to keep posting definitions of new methods, without any
reason why they're supposed to be good, much less the
best. For instance, the fact that Don's latest method
counts 2nd choices with 1st choices when it does MPV doesn't
, by it self, constitute a standard, or a reason why
the method is good or is doing something desirable.


Mike


--