[EM] Ted: Voting system properties

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Ted:

You wrote:

But are these the criteria we really want to achieve in a
single-winner election?  To say that LNH is the most important
criterion is, at its most basic level, an emotional argument. 

[endquote]

I like LNHa compliance because, in addition to majority-rule, it's
important to deal with the relation of candidates and voters _within_
a potential majority. Compliance with LNHa and CD facilitates better
intra-majority co-operation.

You continued:

 While
effective in persuading the electorate, I think what we really want to
look for is a method that does a good job of finding the candidate
closest to the center of the electorate

[endquote]

Sure. That's another way of saying that we want some kind of majority-rule
protection. SFC, SDSC, WDSC, 3P, 1CM, MMC, for example.

You continued:

, while resisting strategic
manipulation.

[endquote]

The academics like to say that, but, when they do, they're
getting it backwards. Strategy isn't, primarily, something to
resist. Primarily, defensive strategy is a need that should be
minimized. Secondarily, one thing that can cause defensive strategy
need is offensive strategy. But some methods have horrendous defensive
strategy need without any offensive strategy being used: Plurality
and IRV. So, plainly, "resisting strategy" isn't the primary problem.

Mike Ossipoff

 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111130/ec0a6d4b/attachment-0003.htm>