[Election-Methods] RE : Re: RE : Re: Is the Condorcet winner always the best?

Kevin Venzke stepjak at yahoo.fr
Wed Dec 12 07:44:31 PST 2007


I thought you were pretty clear.

--- Diego Santos <diego.renato at gmail.com> a écrit :
> I was not enough clear when i wrote my previous email. The '>>' is not a
> real approval mark on the ballot, it was only a "satisfaction limit" from
> each voter. I am arguing that not always the Condorcet winner is the one
> that maximizes happiness of the people, as Jonathan pointed.

While this is true, the thing that isn't obvious is that implementing an
approval cutoff would result in people using it in a sincere way rather
than as a strategic tool.

I like approval voting but I don't view it as a way to ensure that winning
candidates provide a fair amount of utility. I also think any candidate who
can get a substantial proportion of the voters to put a mark by his name,
already has this amount of utility.

> A "approval quorum" rule will avoid low utility CW to win. And, opposit
> to
> Jonanthan argument, an approval cuttoff does not add too much complexity:
> it
> is like a hypothetical candidate NOTB (none of the below).

This makes me repeat my comment: Why desire voters to rank among the NOTB
candidates if the whole purpose of specifying NOTB is to allow us to ignore
those rankings?

Kevin Venzke

Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail http://mail.yahoo.fr

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list