[EM] publicly acceptability of election methods

[Russ Paielli]

Eric Gorr eric-at-ericgorr.net |EMlist| wrote:
> Russ Paielli wrote:
> 
>> What is too complicated? Nobody knows the exact answer to that 
>> question, of course, but let me tell you what I think.
>>
>> I think you can forget about any method that cannot be explained in 
>> two or three sentences understandable by persons of average 
>> intelligence. Maybe that can be stretched to four sentences, but 
>> that's really pushing it.
> 
> 
> Wouldn't STV then be defined as a complicated method?
> It has certainly found acceptance among large populations.

As far as I know, STV is a generalization of IRV for multi-winner 
elections. So the reasons for IRV's popularity apply to STV to some 
extent. Yes, STV is more complicated than IRV, but I think people tend 
to be more open to complexity for multi-winner elections because there 
is perhaps no way to achieve proportional representation without it. For 
single-winner elections PR doesn't apply and they expect simpler 
election rules.

--Russ