[EM] Re: IRV - Approval , Condorcet-Approval hybrids

[Chris Benham]

Kevin,
Previously, I wrote:

CB:In step 1, why did  you specify that voters only rank the candidates "they would
 be willing to support"? What the hell is the "approval cutoff" for? Pardon my tone,
but I have no sympathy for the stupid tendency to want to confuse ranking with rating.

To which you responded:
"I don't understand your objection... How do you propose this system 
work without an approval cutoff?"

CB: My second  question above was  a sarcastic rhetorical question, 
purely related to the first question.
It was meant to emphasize the point that  both restricting voters to 
only ranking candidates "they would be willing
to support",  and also having an approval cutoff,  is  redundant and silly.
So I don't  "propose this system work without  an approval cutoff".

KV: "But I'm not so sure that Approval-Elimination Runoff (what is described at the
top of this message) meets Participation.  I can sort of imagine one's vote preventing
a candidate from winning at a certain stage (by increasing the amount needed for
a majority), causing a less-liked candidate to win afterwards.

The fear of this possibility, I think, is what would cause people to up-rank
compromises, and possibly create multiple majorities.  But I don't see a good
way of fixing this without inviting cycle-related problems.

I might also add that I see it as an asset that "AER" does not require the
notion of "pairwise contests" (let alone "cycles") to be understood."

CB:I think Participation is very important criterion,which trumps the Condorcet criterion.
I agree with your last sentence, especially as it relates to cycles.

Chris Benham



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20030909/b794e8d3/attachment-0003.htm>