[EM] Why We Shouldn't Count Votes with Machines

[Dave Ketchum]

On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 17:34:51 -0700 Bob Richard wrote:
> Dave Ketchum wrote:
> 
>  > We have to be doing different topics.
> 
> I'm afraid that Dave and James Gilmour are indeed "doing different 
> topics". I gather that, for Dave, it is taken for granted that elections 
> are held to fill a single seat (or executive branch office). The choice 
> between winner-take-all in single-member districts and PR just isn't 
> part of this discussion. I'm afraid that's true of an awful lot of 
> discussions held within the framework of social choice theory.
> 
> For James, I suspect that the choice between winner-take-all and PR is 
> fundamental. It's definitely fundamental for me.

Interesting that this exchange started in a post where I began with 
"Plurality does fine with two candidates, or with one obvious winner over 
others.  It is unable...".

I was arguing against Plurality and for Condorcet, but it seems like method 
matters little when, for whatever reason, there are either:
      Only two candidates to pick one from or
      One candidate expects a strong majority of the votes.

I admit to spending little effort on PR, partly because I cannot now vote 
in such elections - but see need to try to improve single seat, as in 
electing a mayor.

> 
-- 
  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.