[EM] New tryIRV free IRV survey website online

[Dave Ketchum]

Downright curious how we skip over what is presented between  our  
eyes!!!

I recommended paying more attention to Condorcet Internet Voting  
Service.  Less than a dozen lines after reading my reference to CIVS  
below, Robert wished for exactly that!

0n Jul 7, 2011, at 9:50 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2011, at 7:26 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
>> Ouch!
> i missed it.
>
>> .     As Kristofer just wrote, Condorcet is a much better method  
>> than IRV for what you are promising - Interesting that Condorcet  
>> offers (more than) the same voter ranking capabilities as IRV, but  
>> does much better counting.
>
> i think the major argument for Condorcet is that it is the most  
> consistent with the binary election of any pair.  isn't that sorta  
> what Pareto efficiency is about?

Can help that, while we find fault with IRV, voters can be learning  
via IRV how they would interface with Condorcet.
>
>
> we all agree how an election between only two candidates should be  
> evaluated given equal weight between voters (that is the true  
> meaning of "One person, one vote" and i'm still appalled that this  
> slogan was used by the IRV-repeal people).  it should be no  
> different if a third candidate is added unless that third candidate  
> beats both A and B.  there is no justification for why this third  
> candidate should reverse the preference of the electorate regarding  
> A and B.  if it's Condorcet compliant and if there is a Condorcet  
> winner, then the outcome is no different than it would be if the CW  
> runs against any of the other candidates.  the electorate, when  
> asked and given equal weight to voters, say that they prefer this  
> candidate over every other candidate.
>
>> .     CIVS offers, available now, what you seem to be trying.   
>> Recommend you study this description of CIVS and consider what it  
>> offers:   http://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/civs.html
>>
>> Dave Ketchum
>>
>> On Jul 7, 2011, at 10:25 AM, Sand W wrote:
>>
>>> I hope everyone is interested in a new online survey site intended  
>>> to prove how much better IRV-enabled surveys are than traditional  
>>> "one choice" or approval surveys.
>
> can you provide a ranked-choice survey that is Condorcet compliant  
> rather than IRV?
>
> if your survey page has the ranked ballot that IRV uses, you can  
> evaluate the survey by different methods.  why not give the users a  
> choice?  some might pick Borda (cough, cough).
>
> hey, this would actually be useful information for academic study.   
> make the tools available (like in the website that performs the  
> surveys) and the choice of several election methods, including  
> traditional vote-for-one/plurality, Approval, ranked-choice  
> (whatever Condorcet, IRV, Borda, Bucklin), and Score voting.  find  
> out which ones are more preferred by users of the survey tools.

Actually, studying their preferences for others, by users of such  
tools, may be a bit much.  We need to  talk to average voters, and to  
the politicians that are willing to help the voters a bit, SO LONG AS  
it does not hurt themselves too much.
>
> just an idea.
> --
> r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110707/49c5fbfc/attachment-0004.htm>