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

[Stéphane Rouillon]

  Ok, where do I sign up?

On 2011-09-05 23:13, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> ----
> 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/20110906/41eb90ae/attachment-0004.htm>