[EM] plurality - mandate length

[Stephane Rouillon]

Among the several ideas I proposed in SPPA,
one consists in using the plurality result to determine the mandate length.

Above 50% the elected person receives a full mandate.
But do you think a president winning with 25% of the votes could be limited
to a two-years mandate instead of four years?

Stephane

James Gilmour a écrit :

> > <jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > >Now consider:
> > >49  A<C<B
> > >48  B<C<A
> > >  3  C<B<A
> > >IRV winner = B;  CW winner = C.
> > >I doubt very much whether most electors would accept C as
> > the "winner"
> > >if this were an election for Sate Governor, much less for a directly
> > >elected President of the USA.  If anyone has evidence to the
> > >contrary I'd like very much to see it.
> > >James Gilmour
>
> James Green-Armytage replied: >
> >       Well, if the votes were sincere to begin with, then it
> > is axiomatic that C will win a runoff election against B.
>
> But if you did decide this by a separate run-off election, I should not be surprised to find large
> numbers of voters changing their preferences in that run-off election, and in so doing, reject the
> CW.  Imagine a "real-life" scenario: Bush, Gore, Nader.  Would we really have had four years of
> President Nader?  This is about more than voting arithmetic and measures for identifying "the most
> representative candidate".  It brings in systems of values which are expressed in different
> dimensions from those used to measure representivity.
> James Gilmour
>
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info