[EM] Re: preferential voting - rank-order voting?
davek at clarityconnect.com
Mon Aug 23 18:36:59 PDT 2004
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:14:15 -0700 Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
> Hi all,
> In response to a California columnist's call for
> 10386675p-11306421c.html>, I wanted to suggest an overhaul of electoral
> policies based on Condorcet-style voting. However, this discussion
> seems to indicate that the term 'preferential voting' has way too many
> connotations, especially around IRV.
> From a users perspective, I think the most salient feature of these
> systems is that voters (on the front-end) can list multiple options in
> order of preference. How those votes are counted is really a secondary
> (back-end) consideration -- what I'd consider an implementation detail,
> albeit a crucial one.
> Therefore, for purposes of a high-level letter to a newspaper, I'd like
> to use the term "rank-order voting." That's more of a front-end view
> than the terms 'ranked ballots', which is how the counting system views
> them. I would probably still refer to Robert's Rules indirectly, as in:
> One way to improve participation in California's electoral process is
> the use of rank-order voting, also called "preferential voting" in
> Robert's Rules of Order. This allows voters to rank options in order of
> preference, rather than merely picking a single favorite; done
> properly, it makes it easier to vote sincerely rather than having to
> worry about strategic considerations such as vote-splitting.
Looks right. This is sensitive because of reference to Robert's:
Robert's ONLY offers an example, rather than a specification.
Example, as to voting, is standard for both Condorcet and IRV.
As to counting, example is for IRV, and not for Condorcet.
Wonder a bit about strategy - in SOME circumstances, IRV presents
opportunity for strategy - some also claim this for Condorcet, but seems
to me even less likely to be a problem.
> That is, I want to present the concept in a way that avoids the IRV vs.
> Condorcet discussion for now, but highlights the overall benefits. As
> such, is that a reasonably accurate (if incomplete) statement? Any
> suggestions on better phrasing?
> - Ernie P.
> NORMAAL - the Network of Radical Middle Activists and Learners
> On Aug 22, 2004, at 1:42 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 07:08:06 -0700 Steve Eppley wrote:
>>> Check out the definition of "preferential voting" in the Scott,
>>> Foresman book on Robert's Rules of Order.
>>> I don't have a copy but my recollection is that it
>>> defines preferential voting as any voting method in which the voters
>>> express their orders of preference--
>>> my words, not theirs--and it offers IRV as one example. Their use
>>> of IRV as an example could explain why some people now believe the
>>> term is a synonym for IRV.
>> Robert's likes repeated balloting much better, but concedes that is
>> not always practical.
>> They offer IRV (by description, not by name) as an example, and say
>> nothing against other preferential methods such as Condorcet.
> On Aug 22, 2004, at 1:54 PM, Steve Eppley wrote:
>>> Yes. They do point out problems with IRV.
>>> In particular, that it can easily defeat the
>>> best compromise. It would be nice if someday
>>> they discuss a better preference order method.
>> 1990 edition was Scott, Foresman.
>> 2000 edition is Perseus Publishing and is current - words on
>> Preferential look identical to me.
>> www.robertsrules.com says there is now a CD-ROM with the rules.
davek at clarityconnect.com people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
More information about the Election-Methods