[EM] Amateur peer-reviewed "journal" for voting methods, criteria, and compliances?

robert bristow-johnson rbj at audioimagination.com
Sat Sep 29 23:16:22 PDT 2012

> On the surface I like Jameson's idea of creating a peer-reviewed 
> election-methods publication.  I certainly understand his frustration 
> with Wikipedia, and a peer-reviewed election-methods publication is 
> one way to deal with the problem that Wikipedia has been -- in my 
> opinion -- taken over by editors to the exclusion of subject-matter 
> experts.
> Ironically part of the problem may be that the Wikimedia Foundation 
> (which runs Wikipedia) uses the Condorcet-Schultze method to elect not 
> just the most popular candidate, but to also elect what they 
> mistakenly believe to be the "second-most popular" candidate, and 
> successively-most popular candidates.  In other words, they fail to 
> understand that using a single-winner method to get multiple-winner 
> results is wildly unfair.  Of course they need something like VoteFair 
> representation ranking or Schulze-STV.

i dunno exactly how they do their ordering at Wikipedia (to get 2nd, 3rd 
place winners using Schulze), but would you say if the Condorcet 
criterion was met for each subset, would it be unfair to just identify 
the top CW, then kick him/her out of the set of candidates and do it 
again to identify the CW in the remaining set?  it seems logical to me 
to say that after the top CW is removed from the candidate set, that if 
a CW exists in the remaining set, wouldn't that be fair to call the 
"2nd-most popular" candidate?


r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list