[EM] Weak Condorcet winners [was: FairVote are not the friendliest]

[Peter Zbornik]

Hi Jameson,

I think the best reform proposal would be FPTP and "the other method"
in a two round system.

This is certainly not complex and run-off elections are held
everywhere in Europe, except for some larger islands of the coast of
France :o).

The disadvantage of introducing a new method is, that people don't
understand it and are afraid that it might lead to worse results.

The idea with the two-round reform path, is that people don't have to
understand the "other method". If it generates a bad candidate, they
will just vote for the FPTP winner. That is, there is an insurance for
the electorate against worse results after election reform. And the
last thin election reformers would like to see is an other election
reform rolled back just like in Burlington.

A two round system is very easy to explain along the following lines:
Ok you have on one hand the winner of our old and tried FPTP and then
the winner which is generated by a very modern method, which you don't
understand how it work. Now the new thing is, you can chose which of
the two winners you like. The one who gets the most votes in the
second round wins, just like in FPTP.

Now that was not so hard to explain, and the voter is assured that the
result will not be "disastrous" because of the workings of a method he
doesn't really understand.

As for more imaginative proposals, see my recent post.

Best regards
Peter Zborník

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2011/9/22 Peter Zbornik <pzbornik at gmail.com>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I agree with James, and that was why I proposed that election reform
>> took the path through added election rounds.
>>
>> Reform of FPTP would thus add a second election round where the
>> Condorcet winner would meet the FPTP winner. Who in the UK would
>> object to that?
>> <details snipped>
>
> I agree that such a system would have good results, often would not even
> need two rounds (if all systems' winners were the same), and would
> successfully address the weak Condorcet winner objection. Unfortunately, I
> also think that it passes the complexity threshold for most people. It's
> hard enough to explain one new system; you're suggesting making it so we'd
> have to explain three? Remember, faux-just-folks "too complicated for me"
> arguments were a big part of the successful anti-AV campaign in the UK.
> Jameson