Bucklin, MCA, and history (was [EM] The responsiveness of Condorcet / Monotonicity)

Forest Simmons fsimmons at pcc.edu
Wed Jul 16 12:30:04 PDT 2003

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Alex Small wrote:

> Adam Tarr said:
> > As a side note, only a few methods discussed here actually pass both
> > clone-independence AND monotonicity.  Beatpath, ranked pairs, approval,
> > cardinal rankings, median ranking, and extended MCA (Bucklin with equal
> > rankings allowed) all satisfy both.  These are the only methods I know
> > of  that I'd work to get adopted for single-winner reform.
> Your mention of the relationship between MCA and Bucklin brings to mind a
> question:
> Does anybody on the list know how widespread Bucklin was in the US?  I've
> seen little blurbs when googling for Bucklin, but mostly it's "tried in
> the US, especially the South, in the early 20th century, eventually
> abandoned".  If anybody has a source worth checking out, even if it's
> obscure, I'm keen to learn more.  I have access to a large university
> library, and there's always interlibrary loan.
> If voters were dissatisfied with Bucklin, I wonder to what extent they'll
> like MCA.

MCA has at least two significant advantages over Bucklin that would tend
to make it more appealing to the voter:

(1) It satisfies the FBC.

(2) It has a simpler, easier to use, easier to understand ballot.


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list