[EM] Election Goals & Methods - a review

[Dave Ketchum]

Earlier I make the point that FPTP should not be used because it does  
not let voters completely express their desires.

Here I add that Runoffs can try to recover from FPTP's failures, but  
not necessarily succeed.

Knowing that Runoffs get used with other methods, where they may not  
deserve their expense, I hint that this topic needs more thought than  
I cover in detail here.

Now, on to your thoughts:

On Dec 6, 2009, at 7:49 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
>> Runoffs:  Essential with FPTP unless one candidate receives a  
>> majority vote, for there is too great a chance for best-liked to  
>> not receive the most votes.  Top-two runoff weakness is the chance  
>> for FPTP to have seen true best-liked as third.  Of less value for  
>> methods that let voters better express their desires.
>
> You might want to add that the second round of the runoff is  
> strategy free, as there are only two candidates. Thus a runoff may  
> have advantages beyond other methods if people strategize a lot  
> (e.g. in small council elections). The strategy would then involve  
> making the "wrong" top two survive to the second round, so the first  
> round would have to use a method that is fairly resistant to strategy.

"second round" seems to me to confuse more than help - but lets ignore  
that for now.

Runoffs are simply a component of an election, so their not affecting  
strategy problems in other components matters little.
>
> One (complicated) idea I've suggested earlier is to have a runoff  
> with two Condorcet methods: the first surviving candidate is the  
> winner of a good "honest voters'" method, while the second surviving  
> candidate is the winner of a burial-resistant (though perhaps  
> nonmonotonic, etc) method. If the voters are honest, the first  
> winner prevails; if the voters strategize heavily, at least they can  
> get no worse than what the second method provides.

A major goal is to make the election both understandable to voters and  
requiring minimum effort from them.

What may not get said enough is that tempting a group to strategize  
can tempt other groups to compete - for hopeless  results.
>
> It's probably overkill for a public election, but might be useful in  
> small or intermediate size scenarios.