[EM] Has this idea been considered?

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/7/4 Russ Paielli <russ.paielli at gmail.com>

> Thanks for the feedback, Jameson. After thinking about it a bit, I realized
> that the method I proposed probably suffers from strategy problems similar
> to IRV. But at least it avoids the summability problem of IRV, which I
> consider a major defect.
>
> OK, here's another proposal. Same thing I proposed at the top of this
> thread, except that voters can vote for more than one candidate, as in
> Approval Voting. How does that stack up?
>
> By the way, I took a look at SODA, and I must tell you that I don't
> consider it a "practical reform proposal." It's way too complicated to ever
> be adopted for major public elections. The method I just proposed is already
> pushing the limit for complexity, and it is much simpler than SODA.
>

The method you just proposed *is* SODA. That is, you've given the
one-sentence summary, and SODA works out the details. Voters are used to the
fact that laws typically have both a pithy name/goal and an actual content
which is paragraphs of legalese. Even approval voting or plurality take
paragraphs to define rigorously.

JQ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110705/f4e68b18/attachment-0004.htm>