[EM] Am I still subscribed?

[robert bristow-johnson]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: Re: [EM] Am I still subscribed?

From: "Kristofer Munsterhjelm" <km_elmet at t-online.de>

Date: Thu, February 9, 2017 4:41 am

To: rbj at audioimagination.com

"election-methods at lists.electorama.com" <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



> On 02/09/2017 08:26 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

>>

>>

>> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

>> Subject: Re: [EM] Am I still subscribed?

>> From: "VoteFair" <electionmethods at votefair.org>

>> Date: Thu, February 9, 2017 1:39 am

>> To: "election-methods at lists.electorama.com"

>> <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>

>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>

>>> On 2/8/2017 1:59 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:

>>>

>>>> It seems simple enough to just do a New Zealand ballot:

>>>> 1. Do you want to change the voting method? (yes/no)

>>>> 2. If yes wins, what do you want to replace it with? (use either

>>>> Plurality or Approval for the meta-election method here)

>>>

>>> Nope. In order to make the decision fair, the final vote needs to be

>>> yes/no. That means the method needs to be picked first.

>>>

>>

>> well, no. this is just like saying "no" is one of the run-off finalists

>> and the other finalist must be picked first.

>>

>> but if "no" is just one option among the other voting methods to choose

>> from, then this compound decision resolves exactly the same as ranking

>> all of the options (including the "no" option) and, *if* there is a

>> Condorcet winner, choosing the Condorcet winner. (if there isn't an

>> Condorcet winner, that means the voting body prefer *something* over

>> "no". but if there is a Condorcet winner among all options, that

>> resolves the same as everyone choosing the "yes" option first (using

>> Condorcet) and then stacking that up against "no" and see which option

>> the voters decide.

>>

>> this is why i like Condorcet so much (and why i worry less about the

>> cycle). Condorcet makes all of the options, including the status quo,

>> all positioned on a flat playing field.

>

> A Condorcet-in-spirit referendum system could go like this:

>

> - Order the options randomly.

> - Ask a yes/no about whether the voters prefer the first option to the

> second.

> - Ask a yes/no about whether the voters prefer the winner of the

> previous round to the third option.

> - ... and so on up to the last option, asking a yes/no about the winner

> of the last round compared to the kth option.
in presentation, this is not flat.  the kth option is always in the "final round".
now, up to here, we're describing what happens on an individual ballot...


> Whichever option wins is the overall winner, and it must be the CW if it

> exists (and voters never change their minds between the rounds). The

> cycle tiebreaker is in effect to pick a random option in the Smith set.
... but now we have tabulated voting results.  how did we get here?
>

> But it's really cumbersome.
i don't see it as equivalently flat as a simple ranked ballot decided by a Condocet-compliant method (and a CW existing).
in a referendum, why does the status-quo option have to be a "special option"?  why can't it be just one of the
several options being chosen from?




--
r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20170209/2d6f34c8/attachment-0001.htm>