[EM] Classifying 3-cand scenarios. LNHarm methods again.

[Kevin Venzke]

Hi Robert,

--- En date de : Dim 18.4.10, robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com> a écrit :
> now i disagree with Gierzynski's value system here, but i
> agree with him about the consequences.  if the Liberals
> in Burlington want to minimize the likelihood of electing
> the Conservative candidate for mayor, they will now need to
> seriously consider putting together a *single* coalition
> candidate rather than run a candidate from each of the Prog
> or Dem caucuses.  Gierzynski thinks this is good, i
> think it's bad.

It seems like you must mostly disagree with what you quoted. I read
him as feeling there is something fundamental about FPP that is
well suited to some unchangeable political reality of the US.

I somewhat admire FPP incentives, as they do a pretty good job of
delivering to the median voter two reasonable choices. A lot is
accomplished with a simple method that mostly lacks potential for
voter strategy.

I think that a modest goal would be to have a method that provides
incentive to coalesce behind three candidates.

The Burlington votes are inspiring. I'm amazed at how close the 
first preference counts were, and that a fourth candidate even got
15%. Unfortunately the resolution is so stereotypical you could 
think it was contrived to make a point.

What worries me is the possibility that every time we succeed in
implementing an election method which can handle any number of
candidates that we throw at it, we will mostly see scenarios with
one or two strong candidates and a half-dozen losers that never
coalesced into anything, so that we mostly will not be able to tell
the difference in effect from just using FPP.

Kevin Venzke