<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Hello,<BR>
<BR>
I can suggest:<BR>
<BR>
Do you agree to vote our parliament members with the Schulze version of Condorcet methods?<BR> <BR>
For which country?<BR>
<BR>
Stéphane, curious...<BR>
<BR>
<HR id=stopSpelling>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:46:27 +0200<BR>From: magwas@rabic.org<BR>To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com<BR>Subject: [EM] simple definition of Schulze method?<BR><BR>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></body>
</html>