<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/7/4 Russ Paielli <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:russ.paielli@gmail.com">russ.paielli@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Thanks for the feedback, Jameson. After thinking about it a bit, I realized that the method I proposed probably suffers from strategy problems similar to IRV. But at least it avoids the summability problem of IRV, which I consider a major defect.<br>
<br>OK, here's another proposal. Same thing I proposed at the top of this thread, except that voters can vote for more than one candidate, as in Approval Voting. How does that stack up?<br><br>By the way, I took a look at SODA, and I must tell you that I don't consider it a "practical reform proposal." It's way too complicated to ever be adopted for major public elections. The method I just proposed is already pushing the limit for complexity, and it is much simpler than SODA.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The method you just proposed <i>is</i> SODA. That is, you've given the one-sentence summary, and SODA works out the details. Voters are used to the fact that laws typically have both a pithy name/goal and an actual content which is paragraphs of legalese. Even approval voting or plurality take paragraphs to define rigorously.</div>
<div><br></div><div>JQ</div><div><br></div></div>