[EM] Meta-criteria 9 of 9: Conclusion

[Juho]

On May 7, 2010, at 6:40 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:

> 2010/5/7 Juho <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk>

> My intent was to propose a nonbinding poll which would be conducted  
> on the same ballots as, and thus simultaneously with, the actual  
> election. Any valid vote would be interpreted as an answer in the  
> poll, but this answer could be overridden by the voter, either to  
> add subtlety, or effectively to say what part of the actual vote was  
> strategic. This proposal flows from the realization that  
> expressivity and outcome utility are separate values, and that  
> forcing them together sometimes brings them into conflict.
>
> I understand that some might argue that this proposal would hurt  
> legitimacy. What if the election winner was not the poll winner?  
> Personally, I'd argue that if this is true, it's better to know it.  
> Either way, the society would get a better understanding of the true  
> legitimacy of the winners. With a good system, disagreements would  
> be rare, and so legitimacy overall would increase; and when they  
> occurred, they could be an important, though symbolic, check on the  
> mandate of a winner who's true legitimacy is weak.

One could claim that TTR is a better system than IRV since TTR  
collects less information and therefore there is less basis for  
complaining about strange end results (e.g. not electing the Condorcet  
winner). :-)

Juho






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20100507/32ec9109/attachment-0004.htm>