[EM] publicly acceptability of election methods

[Eric Gorr]

Russ Paielli wrote:
> 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.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't see any reason to believe this.


-- 
== Eric Gorr ========= http://www.ericgorr.net ========= ICQ:9293199 ==
"Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for temporal safety
deserve neither to be safe or free." -- Benjamin Franklin
== Insults, like violence, are the last refuge of the incompetent... ===