<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Árpád,<br>
<br>
I have two questions.<br>
<br>
(1) How is the legislature of your country currently elected? As James
Gilmour also said, replacing a proportional method with single-member
districts would be a big step backwards.<br>
<br>
(2) Does your country have a directly-elected President, or elected
mayors in the cities, or other executive offices? That's where a
Condorcet-compliant method might be an improvement. I say "might be"
because the importance of Condorcet compliance relative to other
criteria is hotly debated, including in this forum.<br>
<br>
--Bob Richard<br>
<br>
Árpád Magosányi wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:116fc2d90906040646l60ae0af2p68f6b99d9f1cdb93@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Hi!<br>
<br>
I am planning to initialize a referenda in my country to change our
voting system.<br>
I want to propose Condorcet, and want to draft the referenda question
in a way which makes no room for the legistrator to fall back to some
ancient method when there is no Condorcet winner. I prefer Schulze
method.<br>
<br>
The problem is that our constitution and its interpretation leaves very
narrow place to draft a referenda question.<br>
The question should be clear, and it should be simple as well. The
criteria so far executed by our Constitutional Court are the following:<br>
<br>
There should be one question. - I need to state multiple criteria, and
some may interpret them as several questions. I can reason that the
question is one, which refers to a set of criteria which would be
meaningless without each other.<br>
<br>
There should be no specialized word. - "The average voter should be
able to understand." So "Do you agree to vote our parliament members
with a cloneproof Condorcet method which always produces a winner?"
won't work.<br>
<br>
There should be no explanations of terms and ideas in the question. -
"The average voter should be able to understand." Constitutional Court
ruled that ideas and terms which need explanations are beyond that.<br>
<br>
It should be easily understandable. - "The average voter should be able
to understand." Well, our whole constitution is built on the assumption
that citizens are dumb. There might be some place here as I can point
to the current text of voting law which contains D'Hont method as a
small piece of the description of our voting system, and a small set of
criteria is much simpler than that.<br>
<br>
It should be definitive. - "Would you like a voting system which
reflects the different views of voters better, and the winnig strategy
for candidates is to cooperate" would be rejected because there are so
many interpretation of it.<br>
<br>
I think the right way would be draft the question with simple words
through criteria which should be satisfied.<br>
Can you help me by proposing such simple definitions of key criteria?
Specifically I could not find a criteria which would not contain
"beat-path" and be specific to Schulze.<br>
<br>
I am sorry to ask the impossible, but we are in a dire need here.<br>
<br>
<pre wrap=""><hr size="4" width="90%">
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://electorama.com/em">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Bob Richard
Marin Ranked Voting
P.O. Box 235
Kentfield, CA 94914-0235
415-256-9393
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.marinrankedvoting.org">http://www.marinrankedvoting.org</a>
</pre>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Bob Richard
Marin Ranked Voting
P.O. Box 235
Kentfield, CA 94914-0235
415-256-9393
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.marinrankedvoting.org">http://www.marinrankedvoting.org</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>