[EM] lower preferences

[Kevin Venzke]

 --- Donald Davison <donald at mich.com> a écrit : > 
> If a majority does not regard your candidate as a beauty, just remember,
> `Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.'  Nader is not the beauty of the
> majority of the people, so you have no right to advocate election methods
> that will fool this majority into electing your Nader, your turkey.

Donald wants high-utility candidates (at least, high-utility for SOME group).
I would recommend Approval, but Donald seems worried that voters will not be
smart enough to properly place approval cutoffs.

He seems sympathetic to IRV because it tends to discard a lot of lower preferences
completely.  But this creates incentive to compromise in one's higher
preferences, which hurts independents (even high-utility ones).

It doesn't seem like we can discard lower preferences without creating incentives
to rank insincerely.  So I doubt Donald and the lot of us will be able to agree 
on a method.


Donald, would you support IRV with equal-ranking permitted, for the case that I
have two first-choices and am willing to go with whichever one has more support
from other voters?

Such a method would be simpler to explain than other runoff methods which have been 
discussed here (AER, RWE, AERWE), and would permit voters to vote as in Approval if
they wanted.


Kevin Venzke
stepjak at yahoo.fr


___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com