[EM] Fw: Two simple alternative voting methods that are fairerthan IRV/STV and lack most IRV/STV flaws

[robert bristow-johnson]

On Jan 17, 2010, at 3:53 PM, Terry Bouricius wrote:

>  Nearly every political scientist would say that
> Wright and Kiss were the "two strongest candidates."

before or after the election?

before the election, i'm not sure that was true.  they might have  
said that Kiss and Montroll were the "two strongest candidates"

*after* the election, the political scientists/observers are  
reverberating the official election results determined by rules which  
are presently under debate.

> Most political observers would agree that the term the "two
> strongest candidates" does not include the third place plurality
> candidate,

only because the election rules in effect do not put the 3rd place  
candidate (according to the rules) in the top two.  if the election  
rules were changed, then what would the political scientists or  
observers say?

> Under election rules used in any government election in the world,
> whether a plurality election or a traditional runoff election,
> Montroll would lose as the third place candidate.

and i've pointed that out a few times.  and Montroll would not have  
been in the runoff.  and, it's possible that with reduced turnout,  
that the "biggest loser" (from the Condorcet POV) would have won  
subsequently pissing off 66% of the town.

> The fact that IRV introduced ranked ballots allows us to see
> that his broader second-choice appeal made him the Condorcet- 
> winner, but
> it is at least debatable as to whether the term "strongest" is the
> appropriate term to be applied to a candidate who could be in last  
> place
> in a plurality situation.

yes, it's debatable and, since there are 3 different methods all  
lifting up different declared winners, it's subjective.

--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."