[EM] simple definition of Schulze method?

[Bob Richard]

Árpád,

I have two questions.

(1) How is the legislature of your country currently elected? As James 
Gilmour also said, replacing a proportional method with single-member 
districts would be a big step backwards.

(2) Does your country have a directly-elected President, or elected 
mayors in the cities, or other executive offices? That's where a 
Condorcet-compliant method might be an improvement. I say "might be" 
because the importance of Condorcet compliance relative to other 
criteria is hotly debated, including in this forum.

--Bob Richard

Árpád Magosányi wrote:
> 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.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>   

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


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20090604/1629574e/attachment-0004.htm>