[EM] RE : Re: Election methods in student government...

[Tim Hull]

OK, wasn't sure about Condorcet - I knew that to meet the Condorcet
criterion with a voting method you had to violate later-no-harm, but not
that the finding of a Condorcet winner in and of itself violated LNH.
Thanks for clearing that up...

Regarding the single winner methods, it seems that IRV or MMPO may be the
way to go there if one wants to maintain later-no-harm.  Range seems to be a
good choice with respect to non-LNH compliant methods, and reweighted range
for multi-winner.

I'm curious - is there any other multi-winner PR methods (besides STV) that
satisfy later-no-harm, exclusing variants of party list and asset?  Also,
what tie-breaking methods for IRV/STV/MMPO satisfy LNH?

I figure that the decision mostly comes down to whether LNH or monotonicity
are more important in our elections.  I know many people will bullet vote -
probably more than in a hypothetical national election - if the voting
system fails LNH.  However, monotonicity is also a concern...

On 12/21/06, Kevin Venzke <stepjak at yahoo.fr> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> --- Tim Hull <thully at umich.edu> a écrit:
> > Also, what preferential methods exist that satisfy "later no harm"?  I
> > think
> > that students, more than others, tend to "bullet vote" - and this may be
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20061221/795d000d/attachment-0003.htm>