[EM] Methods for Senators, governors, etc.

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

Dave Ketchum wrote:
> A few thoughts:
>      Plurality or Approval cannot fill need.
>      IRV uses about the same ballot as Condorcet - but deserves 
> rejection for its method of counting.
>      Condorcet can - but I am trying to word this to also accept other 
> methods that satisfy need.
>      Range does much the same, but needs better words than I have seen 
> as to how, simply, to rate SoSo when ranking would be Good>SoSo>Bad.
>      Method needs to be understandable by voters (I read compaints about 
> handling of Condorcet cycles - I claim that they do not need to be 
> ubderstood in detail - mostly that discussing frequency and effect 
> should satisfy most).
>      The methods that inspired this missive claim to offer some, 
> possible valuable, benefits - at a cost that may be prohibitive - leave 
> them to audiences who agree the benefits are worth the cost.

If Schulze's too complex, use MAM (Ranked Pairs) or River. These are at 
least easy to explain. If people are very concerned about FBC, then 
perhaps MDDA - though I don't know it does with respect to the advanced 
criteria (like clone resistance).

Schulze does have the advantage of wide use, at least compared to the 
two other methods here. While I don't know if potential legislators 
would lend any weight to its use in computer related organizations, the 
others haven't much of a record at all.

One other thing to note is that some multiwinner elections in New 
Zealand uses Meek STV. Not exactly the simplest to understand of 
methods, so it may still be possible to get complex methods through.