On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Alex Small wrote: > Adam Tarr said: > > As a side note, only a few methods discussed here actually pass both > > clone-independence AND monotonicity. Beatpath, ranked pairs, approval, > > cardinal rankings, median ranking, and extended MCA (Bucklin with equal > > rankings allowed) all satisfy both. These are the only methods I know > > of that I'd work to get adopted for single-winner reform. > > Your mention of the relationship between MCA and Bucklin brings to mind a > question: > > Does anybody on the list know how widespread Bucklin was in the US? I've > seen little blurbs when googling for Bucklin, but mostly it's "tried in > the US, especially the South, in the early 20th century, eventually > abandoned". If anybody has a source worth checking out, even if it's > obscure, I'm keen to learn more. I have access to a large university > library, and there's always interlibrary loan. > > If voters were dissatisfied with Bucklin, I wonder to what extent they'll > like MCA.
MCA has at least two significant advantages over Bucklin that would tend to make it more appealing to the voter: (1) It satisfies the FBC. (2) It has a simpler, easier to use, easier to understand ballot. Forest ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
