[EM] Cheering for simplicity/Orphan

[Forest Simmons]

Furthermore, what we call "election methods" have many applications beyond
public elections. We call the alternatives "candidates" because that is a
colorful case that interests a lot of people.

Forest

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Alex Small wrote:

> John B. Hodges said:
> > Some time back I asked why the folks here worked so hard to find
> > other methods of Proportional Representation when we had Party List  and
> > STV, which seemed to cover all the necessary bases. People
> > responded with their complaints about both methods.
>
> Well, many of us are interested in election methods for intellectual
> reasons as well as practical reasons.  Yes, we want to see better election
> methods implemented, but we are also personally intrigued by some of the
> intellectual issues related to election methods.  Devising a different
> election method to satisfy some criterion might help us understand what is
> necessary in order to satisfy that criterion, and hence why certain
> phenomena can occur.
>
> The hope is that some of this can later be used to inform the design of
> simpler election methods, or at least enrich our personal understanding.
> Even if we (hypothetically, mind you, let's not open old debates just now)
> never proposed anything more complicated than Approval and Party List in
> public discussions, a deeper personal understanding would help us when
> questions arise.
>
> Also, there is a small group of professionals who study election methods
> for a living.  In any campaign to introduce a new election method
> (whatever it might be) we will almost certainly butt heads with some of
> them (e.g. Saari).  We need to know what we're talking about.  So an
> academic understanding of the deeper mathematical issues is worth having,
> and proposing arcane methods for fun on this forum may be a good way to
> enhance that understanding.
>
>
>
> Alex
>
>
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>