[Election-Methods] MMPO: the best 'transitional' method?

[Dave Ketchum]

I LIKE Condorcet for its easy to state ranking, while permitting voters to 
state bullet and Approval desires conveniently.

This combination makes sense to me for:
      In MANY elections there are only one or two front runners, and 
little interest in remaining candidates - so bullet voting makes sense.
      Approval voting makes sense when voters want to equally back more 
than one candidate.
      Condorcet's ranking lets any voter give unequal ranking to any set 
of candidates they wish to vote for - this becomes important when Approval 
voting would risk causing their second choice to beat their first choice.

Note that IRV uses the same ballots as Condorcet and usually agrees as to 
winner - can embarrass when IRV's winner is clearly undeserving.

Range can also award deserving winners - assuming proper understanding and 
use.  I see it as too much pain.

On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 11:38:37 -0300 Diego Renato wrote:
> As a newbie in this list, I have no preference about the best voting 
> method. I am aware that instinctively Condorcet criterion is desirable 
> if consensus does not exist, but approval or range can produce good 
> results too.

Agreed that these - and Plurality - can produce good results.  We are in 
this debate looking for the best method for all races.
> 
> However, based in Bucklin experiences in USA, I think that any method 
> that violates later-no-harm (except asset voting) is likely to provide 
> incentive to bullet vote and became a costly version of plurality. If 
> later-no-harm is indispensable for a transitional method, MMPO seems the 
> best alternative because it is nearly Condorcet-efficient and still easy 
> to understand.

I see no harm in bullet voting - but want a better method available for 
races that give Plurality trouble.

While Condorcet is more costly than Plurality, I see it as simpler to 
understand than Range - its major competitor in this debate.
> 
> After people be accustomed with multi-option voting, and depending of 
> the detected flaws, other method may be considered, like SSD. (This 
> thought does not violate my previous opinion about advantages of 
> Improved Approval Runoff in low-knowledge populations).

I see Condorcet as a proper entry to multi-option voting.  Each voter can 
stay with Plurality and Approval voting until some race inspires them to 
learn a bit:
      Rank all the candidates, except the lemons can be ignored - tied at 
least liked.
      Same rank means equal liking.
      Not necessary to use every rank number - gaps do not affect order.
> 
> I apologize for any error. My English is poor.

Rereading for "poor", I see errors in the third paragraph - but nothing 
that would make it hard to understand.
> ________________________________
> Diego Santos
-- 
  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.