[EM] remember Toby Nixon?

[robert bristow-johnson]

On May 25, 2011, at 9:17 PM, fsimmons at pcc.edu wrote:

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kristofer Munsterhjelm
>>
>> Being who I am, I would either pick Ranked Pairs or CSSD
>> (Beatpath,
>> Schulze): the former if it's more important that it can be
>> explained
>> easily, the latter if precedence is more important.
>>

being that they choose the same winner in the case that there are only  
3 candidates in the cycle, i would recommend Tideman over Schulze  
(sorry Marcus) for the simplicity of explanation.  while getting a  
Condorcet cycle is expected to be rare enough, how often in real  
elections in government, would you expect a situation where RP and  
CSSD will arrive at a different result?

...

> It's true that historically and even recently ranked systems have  
> been adopted here and elsewhere.  But
> these successes are infinitesimal in comparison to the failed  
> initiatives.
>
> Why have the initiatives failed?  Overwhelmingly because the voters  
> have rejected the idea of ballots that
> require ranking of candidates.

"The single affirmative vote."  a religious position, but it's more  
honest than misrepresenting another principle: "One person, one  
vote."  the most effective political sign was probably "Keep Voting  
Simple".

what these people say they don't wanna do is vote for *anyone* other  
than their choice of candidate.  it's like ranking their contingency  
vote as #2 will somehow hurt their #1 choice (as it would with  
Borda).  then (with IRV) they find out that their #1 choice actually  
hurt their #2 choice by helping the candidate they hated the most.

this is why i'm kinda mad at FairVote.  by equating the Ranked Choice  
with Hare/IRV, when IRV screwed up, they sullied the ranked ballot for  
all other cases.

--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."