[EM] I should have listed SODA. The conditional methods win, _among the ballots-only methods_.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Jameson--

Yes, sorry to have again missed SODA in my list of FBC/AOC methods.

Methods involving delegation or proxy can do a good job of avoiding strategy problems. 

I suggest that Proxy Direct Democracy, as I've described it during the last few months on EM, 
is the obvious best form of government. (if count-validity can be assured)  ...Let's let government catch up with technology.

Of course in Proxy DD, there'd still be single-winner choices among alternatives (but not candidates).
SODA, therefore, wouldn't be applicable in Proxy DD.

Under the present system of single-winner-elected representation, I include SODA among the good
FBC/ABE methods, even though I neglected to list it in my previous posting.

So I don't oppose or criticize SODA. I consider SODA less winnable than the simplest ballots-only FBC/ABE
methods. But that's just an individual subjective impression, not supported by polling. Well, yes I did
talk to a few people unfamiliar with voting systems, and they didn't like SODA because it was a bit
complicated, and because the weren't used to deciding elections by anyone other than the voters
themselves.

So I personally feel that SODA will be a harder sell. I've had a few conversations to back up that impression,
but I'm the first to admit that there has been no genuinely useful polling on the matter.

We should do polling about which FBC/ABE methods people will accept. Only then can reliable
statements be made on that matter, and regarding the matter of which proposal would be best.

But there's a much more important and immediate polling need:

We must poll people about which 2012 presidential candidates they like. Preferably rank-balloting,
with sincere ranking requested. Tell voters to rank sincerely, to find out which candidate is the
best one that they can get.

Count the ballots by Condorcet-Schwartz-Top.

The main purpose would be to find a voted CW. If there is, instead, a circular tie, then the Schwartz set is the
natural place to look for the best candidate that one can get. The most favorite candidate in that set
seems the best one to support with out Plurality votes.

But it could be said that Beatpath looks for the Schwartz-set member most qualified to be in the Schwartz-set,
and so maybe Beatpath (Or the equivalent Schwartz-Sequential-Dropping (SSD) ) would be a good count method for that practical poll.

But even a Plurality poll would be useful. Assuming a 1-dimensional political spectrum, we could find the median candidate, and
give our Plurality support to hir.

Since legitimate single-winner reform advocates don't have the kind of money that FairVote has, it could be a very, very
long time before we get a better single-winner method. And likely it would start out only in local elections. Then it would
take even longer for it to replace Plurality in state and federal elections.

In stark contrast, we could effectively have Condorcet _immediately_, for 2012, if we did Condorcet polling to determine
the best candidate to whom to give our Plurality votes. 

Condorcet for 2012! Let's do polling to make the best use of the voting system that we already have, Plurality.

And let's do such polling before all elections for state and national office.

We could simultaneously work for the enactment of better single-winner methods too, of course. But right now, in a 
presidential election year, surely public effort should be toward using Plurality to elect the CW.

And no, don't assume that the CW is a Democrat or a Republican.

Mike Ossipoff





 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120111/36b180fe/attachment-0003.htm>