[EM] NPV vs Condorcet

[Bob Richard]

 > It is not a truncation.  It is interpreting FPTP ballots as if used 
by Condorcet voters.

I'm having trouble viewing the ballots from the states that continue to 
use FPTP any other way except as ranked ballots truncated to one 
ranking. What am I missing here?

 > We claim Condorcet offers all voters equal power - even if we have to 
demand
 > some reinterpretation from the courts - and some updating of laws if 
that gets involved.

I'm afraid that this comment completely misunderstands my post. See below.

 > If you are referring to laggard states not offering their voters the 
full ability that is
 > offered and that voters in compliant states get - go beat on the 
laggard states. 

This is exactly what I'm referring to. I was specifically *not* saying 
that Condorcet-compliant methods themselves could violate 
one-person-one-vote. That's not the case.

--Bob

Dave Ketchum wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:51:55 -0700 Bob Richard wrote:
>>  >     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?
>
> It is not a truncation.  It is interpreting FPTP ballots as if used by 
> Condorcet voters.  Should result in pressure on all states to conform 
> ASAP.
>
> I am ONLY considering FPTP and Condorcet  The exact Condorcet method 
> cold be stated in the amendment.  Note that this is only a single 
> national election, though there would be extreme pressure on other 
> government uses of Condorcet to conform.
>>
>> 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.
>
> We claim Condorcet offers all voters equal power - even if we have to 
> demand some reinterpretation from the courts - and some updating of 
> laws if that gets involved.
>
> If you are referring to laggard states not offering their voters the 
> full ability that is offered and that voters in compliant states get - 
> go beat on the laggard states.  The intent is to expedite full 
> compliance without demanding such.
>
> DWK
>>
>> --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

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