jameson.quinn at gmail.com
Mon Jan 6 12:06:40 PST 2014
2014/1/6 Dick Burkhart <dickburkhart at comcast.net>
> Except that the restricted Borda that I've described is the best general
> purpose voting method as far as I can tell. Sure you can do somewhat better
> in particular circumstances, such as when you want true proportionality, or
> when you have non-partisan judges, etc.
You haven't defined "best". And I'm very skeptical you can do so in such a
way that Borda is best. Without strategy, Score is better than Borda. With
strategy, Borda is one of the worst possible systems; worse even than
plurality or random ballot, as with simple first-order strategy Borda
guarantees a nonentity will win. Your "restricted" Borda, insofar as I
understand it, is slightly better than that worst case, but only by means
of taking the edge off the system and making it more like plurality. Yech.
> BTW, when I've run tests on actual sets of votes from Glasgow, most of the
> time Borda, Condorcet, and Approval give the same result!
Using actual votes ignores system-specific strategy, which is Borda's worst
defect (though not the only one.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods