[EM] "scored condorcet", etc
rob at karmatics.com
Tue Nov 22 18:47:11 PST 2005
Dave Ketchum <davek <at> clarityconnect.com> writes:
> Plurality is simple, people are used to it, and it is, usually, good
Yes, agree with your first two points, STRONGLY disagree that plurality is
"usually good enough".
I hear plenty of complaining about how partisan our government is, I personally
can't even watch politics because it is just....sad. I think very few people
have any clue that this is plain and simple CAUSED by plurality voting.
Plurality causes people who cluster into opposing groups to have a massive
strategic advantage...which in fact forces people into opposition rather than
toward the center. I don't see how that could be considered "good enough" by
anyone who understands what is going on.
BTW, my question of "why is plurality more popular" was intended rhetorically.
I think I know many of the reasons why....like you say, understandability and
simplicity. I do, however, think that better systems could be put into
practice, if only those who advocated them had as much of a feel for psychology,
user interface, and marketability as they do for the math.
And as an aside, I think it is sad that if someone wants to learn more about
better ways of voting and types "election methods" into Google, the first hit
they get.....well let's just say it doesn't create a positive impression of the
election methods community.
More information about the Election-Methods