<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
Your table doen't come out in my browser. The Wikipedia comparison
page justifies the belief that election science has followed
economics as the dismal science. Where wealth and power are
concerned, thought flounders. <br>
It is not just that a classification is less potent than a
transformation, which is to say, for example, that Linnaeus preceded
Darwin. The elections classification itself is incoherent, being
based on arbitrary criteria, rather than the necessary attributes of
all elections and their extent of development.<br>
<br>
from<br>
Richard Lung.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 14/07/2017 13:17, Jameson Quinn wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAO82iZzn1J_1wbkJXTZKbkWcs=sia3SO9J7Gg+Zi+1FXoHrvog@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">I've made two <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bNu4eFc1DC-IzJQt9qbyGVay85l5vwTmehXWXiZNVE4/edit#gid=90844263">voting
method comparison tables</a> — for multi-winner and
single-winner methods. Unlike the "<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_electoral_systems">comparison
of electoral systems</a>" table on wikipedia, these are meant
to focus on political practice more than theory. Thus, in terms
of methods, I leave out some possibilities if they're redundant
(eg, only one Condorcet method), overcomplicated, or unlikely to
be used in politics (eg, Borda). And in terms of the aspects I
compare methods on, I try to include practical considerations
rather than just abstract criteria. For instance, "simplicity"
is one aspect, and instead of "later no harm" I have "chicken
dilemma".
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There are 4 tabs in the sheet: emoticon and numeric
versions of the table for multi-winner and single-winner
methods. In a few places the emoticons and the numbers don't
exactly correspond; I consider the numbers to be the latest
version. The methods in the left section are the ones I think
are discussed as reform proposals the most; the ones on the
right are interesting but IMO less-likely to be implemented in
English-speaking countries. In between the two sections is a
column which briefly explains what I meant by the aspect.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you consider the various aspects as voters and the
methods as candidates, the winning methods (under basically
any method used as the "meta method") are 3-2-1 for
single-winner, and GOLD for multi-winner. It is, of course,
not a coincidence that a table I made ends up favoring two
methods I've designed. But I don't think this is because the
table is biased; I think my ratings are pretty much fair and
objective. Rather, it's because the aspects on this table are
the aspects I care about, and so when I designed those two
methods, I deliberately optimized them on these aspects. In
other words, it's the methods which are biased to actually <i>be</i>
good, not the table which is biased to falsely rate them as
good.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Of course, plurality/FPTP is the loser on both tables.
Another thing worth noting is how poorly IRV does among
single-winner methods. As compared to FPTP, it gives just 1/6
of the benefits that 3-2-1 would. I find that ratio plausible.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Still, I understand that other people here will view this
table with some skepticism, and will have plenty of points to
debate. I welcome that discussion; that's why I'm posting it
here.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">----
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>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Richard Lung.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.voting.ukscientists.com">http://www.voting.ukscientists.com</a>
Democracy Science series 3 free e-books in pdf:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://plus.google.com/106191200795605365085">https://plus.google.com/106191200795605365085</a>
E-books in epub format:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/democracyscience">https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/democracyscience</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>