[EM] Remember Toby

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/6/1 Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com>

> On Jun 1, 2011, at 3:57 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
>
>> fsimmons at pcc.edu wrote:
>>
>>> It seems to me that thevoters are more worried about the ballot type
>>> and ease of voting it than they are of the exact counting rules.
>>> There are several Condorcet methods that are clone proof and
>>> monotonic without being too complicated.
>>>
>>
> Let's start by narrowing the field:
>
> Let's not. Choosing a voting system is a trade-off, and using a single
argument to eliminate a system or class of systems from consideration is not
helpful.

I'm sure I could come up with some honest, logical arguments against your
choice of systems, whatever that may be. The point of choosing a common
proposal to put forward, while still supporting a range of systems, is that
just arguing leads nowhere.

A common proposal is not going to satisfy everyone. But it absolutely must
be extremely simple to understand. I've seen four proposals in this thread
that pass that test for me:
- Approval
- DYN
- Condorcet/Approval
- Minimax Condorcet

I'd suggest a fifth:
- MYND - that is, just DYN, with a two-way runoff if there's a (M)ajority
failure, or if the second-place majority-approved candidate demands it. This
is essentially a "work it out, guys" threat to keep any negotiation between
near-clones grounded in the voters' will, as all of the above are in some
way vulnerable to a game of chicken between supporters of near-clones.

None of these are my favorite systems in theory, but any of them would be a
huge practical step up from plurality.

I would still enthusiastically support more-complex systems, but I don't
think that they're the most efficient use of our advocacy energy.

JQ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110601/5f593098/attachment.htm>