[EM] multi-method combo
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
abd at lomaxdesign.com
Thu Jun 8 06:18:40 PDT 2006
At 01:57 AM 6/8/2006, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>I choke on your collection of methods:
>Imposing both range and ranked choice demands that the voter consider both
>methods. It also complicates the ballot and the counting.
Ranked information can be extracted from a Range ballot. If someone
doesn't want to equate two candidates, they don't give them the same
range rating.... Simple.
(If a voter considers two candidates equal, within the resolution of
the Range ballot, it is questionable to base a public election on
preference between them; indeed, is this not the very reason to go to
Range, to avoid forcing preference (but ranked ballots that allow
equal ranking do avoid that).
>No point to having both IRV and Condorcet:
> Usually they will select the same winner.
The difference is not in the ballot, but only in the analysis. I can
see a benefit to publishing both analyses. The IRV winner is perhaps
simpler to explain and, as you've pointed out, usually IRV will
select the same winner. But, especially in a close election, it would
not be too hard to explain why a Condorcet failure in an IRV election
should result in the victory going to the Condorcet winner. Condorcet
should be the rule, IRV merely a way of explaining the results.
(But actually, Condorcet is *easy* to explain: The winner is the
candidate who would beat all other candidates in a two-person race,
based on the rankings on the ballot.)
More information about the Election-Methods