[EM] Remember Toby

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/6/3 Kathy Dopp <kathy.dopp at gmail.com>

> Jameson,
>
> The number two (2) is *not* arbitrary. It is the next integer after
> the number one (1).  Therefore, two is the next simplest number of
> candidates to allow voters to vote for after the number one, since we
> cannot vote for portions of candidates.
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_One_Infinity

I am using the programming analogy not to suggest that it would be hard to
code your suggested system. I mean that your suggestion itself is buggy, in
terms of giving consistently good results. You yourself pointed out why -
candidates could just vote for no-hopes. But the no-hopes would not return
the favor, so the no-hopes would win.

Say 51% of voters support A, and 49% support B. A supports C, B supports D,
and C and D support each other. Result? C wins, if there is even one vote
for C or D!

Jameson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110603/6d3b4bc3/attachment-0004.htm>