[EM] simple definition of Schulze method?

[Stéphane Rouillon]

Hello,

 

I can suggest:

 

Do you agree to vote our parliament members with the Schulze version of Condorcet methods?
 

For which country?

 

Stéphane, curious...

 


Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:46:27 +0200
From: magwas at rabic.org
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20090604/d9ad64c6/attachment-0004.htm>