[EM] IRV3/AV3

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/11/1 Kathy Dopp <kathy.dopp at gmail.com>

> > Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:59:48 -0700
> > From: Andy Jennings <elections at jenningsstory.com>
> >
> > My strongest feeling about your recently proposed system is that the
> > "three" is so arbitrary.
> >
>
> I believe David is responding to the fact that most of today's US
> voting machines would only allow three candidates to be ranked by
> voters, so that most IRV implementations in the US only allow three
> candidates to be ranked.  Even if all candidates could be ranked by
> voters, I would only support using IRV methods of counting after all
> but two (2) candidates were eliminated using Approval Voting.
> Otherwise the vagaries of IRV can pop up.
>

You are correct, Kathy, that your process (allowing 3 IRV ranks,
eliminating all but 2 using implicit approval, then having a virtual runoff
between the 2) is actually quite a good system. But from a FairVote
perspective, it has much more of a "problem" with LNH than if you use
approval to choose 3 instead of 2.

I wonder if there is some good compromise where you cut down to the number
of candidates who have more than 1/3 of the 3-way vote or something like
that...

Jameson



> --
>
> Kathy Dopp
> http://electionmathematics.org
> Town of Colonie, NY 12304
> "One of the best ways to keep any conversation civil is to support the
> discussion with true facts."
> "Renewable energy is homeland security."
>
> Fundamentals of Verifiable Elections
> http://kathydopp.com/wordpress/?p=174
>
> View some of my research on my SSRN Author page:
> http://ssrn.com/author=1451051
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111101/9cc37b9f/attachment-0004.htm>