[EM] NPV vs Condorcet

[Bob Richard]

 >     Some states may not be up to Condorcet instantly.  Let them stay 
with FPTP
 >      until they are ready to move up.  Just as a Condorcet voter can 
choose to rank
 >     only a single candidate, for a state full of such the counters 
can translate FPTP
 >     results into an N*N array.

What would enforcing the truncation of rankings (to a single ranking) 
for part of the electorate -- but not the rest -- do to the formal 
(social choice theoretic) properties of any given Condorcet method? 
Would the effect be the same for all Condorcet-compliant voting methods?

In fact, would this arrangement be valid for any ranked or cardinal 
voting method? Arguably, in the U.S. your opponents could take this to 
court as a violation of one-person-one-vote.

--Bob

Dave Ketchum wrote:
> Was:  Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
>
> Is the Electoral College recognized as having lived ot its useful 
> life?  If so, perhaps we could do up a worthwhile constitutional 
> amendment.
>
> Should we not desperately try to get FPTP out of this?
>
> I suggest three parts for the heart of this:
>      Like NPV we want to count a national election.
>      FPTP deserves burial - USE Condorcet.
>      Some states may not be up to Condorcet instantly.  Let them stay 
> with FPTP until they are ready to move up.  Just as a Condorcet voter 
> can choose to rank only a single candidate, for a state full of such 
> the counters can translate FPTP results into an N*N array.
>
> DWK
>
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:27:50 +0200 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
>> Jonathan Lundell wrote:
>>
>>> All of this would be finessed by the National Popular Vote idea: 
>>> http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
>>>
>>> It'd effectively result in a national FPTP plurality election, 
>>> hardly ideal, but definitely an improvement.
>>>
>>> The Electoral College is, btw, a good example of a case in which an 
>>> election method has a profound and obvious effect on the nature of 
>>> the campaign. US presidential candidates have no motivation to 
>>> campaign in California, New York, Texas, and many other states (they 
>>> show up for fundraising events, but that's about it). If California 
>>> is close, Obama has surely lost the election, and similarly Texas 
>>> and McCain. The states in play vary somewhat over time, but I rather 
>>> imagine contain a minority of the electorate.
>>
>>
>> Could the national popular vote lead to a similar effect, only 
>> opposite? The candidates would have an incentive to visit the cities, 
>> because they could reach many voters in little time; and thus the 
>> effect would move from being biased away from cities (in the large 
>> states) to being biased towards them.
>>
>> Better might be a weighted vote (but who'd set the weights?).

-- 
Bob Richard
Marin Ranked Voting
P.O. Box 235
Kentfield, CA 94914-0235
415-256-9393
http://www.marinrankedvoting.org