[EM] tactical voting vs different methods

[Juho Laatu]

--- On Thu, 11/6/09, Kevin Venzke <stepjak at yahoo.fr> wrote:

> In Schulze you foremost want to defeat every other
> candidate head-to-head.
> If we are even looking at beatpaths, all candidates have
> failed their 
> first goal.

Yes, in Schulze and other Condorcet
methods the primary goal can be said
to be to be the Condorcet winner /
win all other candidates.

> > I think that favouring large parties is not the same
> as
> > favouring cooperation.
> > Actually I would be content with a method which
> > converges to a state where there are at least four
> major
> > parties. I regard two-party system too static.
> > 
> > Could you point me to studies about this?
> 
> Does it have to be a single-winner method?

Yes, multi-party systems are usually
built on (proportional) multi-winner
methods. Condorcet methods work well
in a multi-party setting when one has
to elect one single winner in some
election.

Juho