[Election-Methods] cycles for: rcv ala tournament
davek at clarityconnect.com
Sun Dec 30 19:34:48 PST 2007
We say "rcv", claiming that the IRV backers have done well in promoting
"almost" what we want to sell - we are basically agreed on ballots, but go
our own ways on counting votes.
We can brag that in most races simply counting the votes gives us a clear
Then we get to cycles, and have no end of arguments as to how to respond.
To restart that debate I offer:
Write-ins have to be handle able, for any race in which they are
permitted (this is simply a demand that the arrays have to tolerate
attending to write-ins whenever they discover existence of such).
Resolution has to start with the full district array, without going
back toward ballot data.
Resolution has to be defend able as a reasonable response to the
nature of the cycle. This is the tricky part.
Resolution has to be simple and understandable.
Learn a bit:
CONDORCET'S METHOD of rank-balloting by Mike Ossipoff
Examples For CONDORCET'S METHOD by Mike Ossipoff
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:52:29 -0800 rob brown wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2007 3:57 PM, Kevin Venzke <stepjak at yahoo.fr
> <mailto:stepjak at yahoo.fr>> wrote:
> If I had my way, all the condorcet advocates would hold a vote, and then
> all get behind the method that wins. Well, let's say the first one that
> is a condorcet winner.
> It is my opinion that all condorcet methods are imperfect, but that
> plurality is so much worse, and so much more used, that a better use of
> my own time is debating condorcet vs. plurality rather than condorcet
> vs. condorcet.
> If I have to debate against the range people, so be it, but that is
> mostly because because I think the effect of the range advocates is
> actually to keep the status quo.
davek at clarityconnect.com people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
More information about the Election-Methods