[EM] Educative Alternative Voting board...

[Anguo]

On Monday 09 Feb 2004 9:17 pm, James Green-Armytage wrote:
> Dear Mr. Augustin,

Dear James, 

You can call me Augustin, no need for so much formality ;-)

Thank you very much for your comments. 
I shall reply in order to the three points you were making:


> 	A few quick replies. First of all, that you for your
> work on educating people about Condorcet and alternative
> voting methods in general. It is my hope that eventually
> this issue won't be so obscure. 

Thank you for your encouragement. As far as I know, there 
isn't a single country in the world that uses Condorcet for 
its national elections. If we want this to change, we need 
a broad public support, and before that, a general public 
understanding of what Condorcet has to offer. 


There's nothing in my site that is new to the members of 
this list. 
I am no election method expert but just generally enthusiast 
about Condorcet. 
My site is more aimed at those who don't know yet Condorcet 
and those who have yet to fully understand what it has to 
offer. 

I invite again the members of this list who have already 
visited my site and who not only like to discuss subtle 
technicalities behind different election methods but also 
sincerely wish to see Condorcet or Approval being adopted 
somewhere in the world, for some major election. 
I invite such people to come and spend 10 minutes of their 
time to create some alternative polls in the Agora 
(Bulletin Board) and cast their own votes. Create some 
polls relevant to your respective countries (USA, UK, NZ, 
Oz, France...) so that those whom we want to teach about 
Alternative Election Methods can come and see for 
themselves how different the results could have been in 
their country.  

I welcome the help of anyone who not only likes to talk 
about this subject matter, but also has a sincere wish and 
hope to see such election methods adopted. 

Also, if you know of other places where people can create 
similar polls, let me know so that I can link to them too. 

Meanwhile, the web site is young and the code lacks 
maturity, and in this respect, James, you helped me already 
tremendously.

> Second, I find it a bit 
> confusing that you refer to the simple
> whoever-gets-the-most-votes-wins method as "majority." I
> am more accustomed to calling it "plurality." Another
> name for it is "first past the post." I think the term
> "majority" is misleading, because it is quite possible
> for a candidate to win without a majority of the vote.
> Indeed, this is the root of all the problems in the
> plurality method. I don't think that there is a single
> method that should be called majority. Rather, majority
> rule is an ideal goal for single-winner methods, which
> turns out to be impossible to achieve in some situations
> because of the Condorcet paradox.

Thank you for pointing my error out to me. As I said, I am 
no expert: I see now that I confused 'majority' with 
'plurality'. I have already made the appropriate changes in 
my local master copy of the web site and those changes will 
show next time I upload the site.


> 	Last, I disagree with your assertion that the Condorcet
> method doesn't work well when there are a large number of
> candidates, and therefore I also do not think that your
> proposal for an approval then Condorcet procedure is
> necessary. What is your reasoning for wanting to avoid a
> situation in Condorcet where there are a lot of
> candidates? Is it just the hassle of printing out ballots
> that big? Maybe the answer is simply a computer
> interface. As far as voters truncating their ballots when
> the come to candidates whom they have never heard of,
> this doesn't create a problem in Condorcet. Candidates
> who a big chunk of the voters have never heard of are
> unlikely to win, and that is as it should be.


Not understanding that much, I just listened to the people I 
was in touch with when the coding of this patch just got 
started. One of those people was adamant that a Condorcet 
ballot, to be fully honest and compliant to the Condorcet 
method, should be filled out in full, with all the 
candidates ranked from the first to the last. I coded the 
BB accordingly.

Now, you are telling me that a truncated ballot is equally 
valid and that an election where truncating is allowed 
complies with the same criteria as an election where it is 
not.
In such a case, then you are right again: my 'solution' 
looses its "raison d'etre". A single round of Condorcet 
election would suffice.
If such is the concensus among all the experts, then I shall 
humbly withdraw my proposal. 

I tried to look information on the internet about the effect 
(or lack thereof) of truncating Condorcet ballots. I found 
none. 

Is it a case where there are two school of thoughts: 
truncate or not truncate, that is the question. ?
In such a case, I can modify the path so that both 
alternative are available in the Board (as it stands now, 
the board requires a fully ranked ballot). 
(I have a vague recollection of a city using Condorcet but 
requiring all the candidates to be ranked, but I am far 
from sure).


Or was I just listening to someone misinformed?
Then, I still have to change the code to reflect this.


Thank you once more James for your help so far.

Again, I welcome help, on the www.masquilier.org board to 
create an environment where new comers to such a concept 
are not shy to cast a vote. 
I need help from all the major players in this list (about 
10 minutes of your time) to get it started.


Blessings,

Augustin.





 



-- 
	Quote of the day:
"[SCO] appears to have the same grasp of reality as the 
former Iraqi information minister."
Matt Loney
	Read more:
http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t523-s2134763,00.html