[EM] Declaration of Election-Method Experts and Enthusiasts: final stretch

[Dave Ketchum]

I finally got around to a bit.

I see both Judgment and Judgement - can one be a typo?

> Declaration of Election-Method Experts and Enthusiasts
> Contents
When there is a list of items, some taking more than one line,  
something, such as indentation, should show start of each item.

I see Enthusiasts here - Should also go with Experts below.
>
> Introduction
> It is time to change our voting system.
>
> We, the undersigned election-method experts and enthusiasts from  
> around the world, unanimously denounce the use of plurality voting  
> in elections in which there are more than two candidates. In this  
> declaration we offer several ready-to-adopt replacement election  
> methods that we agree will reliably produce much fairer results.

Proper question is whether there MAY be more than two candidates:
.     There will never be more than two - so election method does not  
matter.
.     When there are more, voters can wish to vote against the worst  
by voting for more than one - impossible with plurality.
.     We cannot be bothered with this need - how bad this is depends  
on value of the election.

Part of selling against plurality:
.     Wherever current experience is that runoffs are rarely needed  
and there is very little voting for other than the two main  
candidates, deciders may feel that there is no need for preparing for  
what has never happened to them.

.     Even with that normality, there can be times when voting for  
others happens in significant numbers.  We need to alert deciders that  
this can happen in any district and this is what needs preparing for  
even if they are used to things staying simpler.

> Better ballots
> With better information from the voters, we can find better winners.

Approval gives nothing but ability to vote for more than one.

All the others provide for voters indicating which of the candidates  
they vote for are also their most preferred.

Also, while Condorcet ranking unconditionally says that higher ranks  
are better than lower, there is nothing requiring or permitting saying  
how much higher.

The other methods, depending on statements as to how much higher a  
ranked candidate may be, require that the voter indicate magnitude in  
the vote.

> Fairer counting methods


Condorcet:
.     It is an approach to a tie that CAN result in those leading  
candidates needing some extra analysis to decide on a winner.

.     The n*n matrix used in Condorcet has information useful to those  
wanting to learn more about relationship of candidates.

>
> There are three Condorcet methods that identify the Condorcet winner  
> (when there is one) without explicitly looking for the Condorcet  
> winner, and they are, in alphabetical order:

I claim that, if there is one, the CW should be found and, at our  
distance, we do not need to check on how the method goes about that.

Even if there is no CW, the n*n matrix used to look for the CW is the  
obvious source for deciding on a winner - which points toward using  
n*n for this analysis.

I have not chased down the innards of using IRV here, but wonder if,  
as used here, it is immune to the problems that afflicted IRV in   
Burlington.

Anyway, I ask that IRV discussion stay out of the Condorcet discussion  
- seems like there were, earlier, better words about IRV than I see  
here.

Also, seems like SODA should be kept away from Condorcet.


In
>> Using the fairer methods in organizations
>> Private organizations are a great place to start voting reform.
>>


>> One particularly relevant example of a “private” election is the  
>> nomination process of a political party. It is true that our  
>> supported methods make this process less important, because, unlike  
>> plurality, they do not break down when more than one candidate from  
>> a party is running. Still, we expect that many parties would still  
>> want to have a formal nomination (“primary election”) process so as  
>> to focus their efforts on one or two candidates per office. We  
>> believe that any party using a superior voting system internally  
>> will see immediate benefits. A primary process with increased  
>> turnout, with fewer negative attacks, and with a more-democratic  
>> result will result in a stronger nominee who is better-prepared to  
>> win in the general election.

This presumably is true in some states.  In New York parties do not do  
elections.  Primaries, done by government for the parties, handle both  
primary elections AND electing party officers.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110905/3017c2f0/attachment-0003.htm>