[EM] simple definition of Schulze method?

[James Gilmour]

Árpád
You say your present voting law contains references to the d'Hondt method.  That suggests you currently have a PR voting system.
You say you want to change to Condorcet.  That implies that you want to change to a system of single-winners in single-member
districts.
Why would you want to do that?
No voting system based only on single-member districts can elect a properly representative assembly, except by chance (and that is
rare).
James Gilmour


> -----Original Message-----
> From: election-methods-bounces at lists.electorama.com 
> [mailto:election-methods-bounces at lists.electorama.com] On 
> Behalf Of Árpád Magosányi
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 2:46 PM
> To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> Subject: [EM] simple definition of Schulze method?
> 
> 
> Hi!
> 
> I am planning to initialize a referenda in my country to 
> change our voting system. I want to propose Condorcet, and 
> want to draft the referenda question in a way which makes no 
> room for the legistrator to fall back to some ancient method 
> when there is no Condorcet winner. I prefer Schulze method.
> 
> The problem is that our constitution and its interpretation 
> leaves very narrow place to draft a referenda question. The 
> question should be clear, and it should be simple as well. 
> The criteria so far executed by our Constitutional Court are 
> the following:
> 
> There should be one question. - I need to state multiple 
> criteria, and some may interpret them as several questions. I 
> can reason that the question is one, which refers to a set of 
> criteria which would be meaningless without each other.
> 
> There should be no specialized word. - "The average voter 
> should be able to understand." So "Do you agree to vote our 
> parliament members with a cloneproof Condorcet method which 
> always produces a winner?" won't work.
> 
> There should be no explanations of terms and ideas in the 
> question. - "The average voter should be able to understand." 
> Constitutional Court ruled that ideas and terms which need 
> explanations are beyond that.
> 
> It should be easily understandable. - "The average voter 
> should be able to understand." Well, our whole constitution 
> is built on the assumption that citizens are dumb. There 
> might be some place here as I can point to the current text 
> of voting law which contains D'Hont method as a small piece 
> of the description of our voting system, and a small set of 
> criteria is much simpler than that.
> 
> It should be definitive. - "Would you like a voting system 
> which reflects the different views of voters better, and the 
> winnig strategy for candidates is to cooperate" would be 
> rejected because there are so many interpretation of it.
> 
> I think the right way would be draft the question with simple 
> words through criteria which should be satisfied. Can you 
> help me by proposing such simple definitions of key criteria? 
> Specifically I could not find a criteria which would not 
> contain "beat-path" and be specific to Schulze.
> 
> I am sorry to ask the impossible, but we are in a dire need here.
> 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.53/2154 - Release Date: 06/04/09 05:53:00