"Tom Ruen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Reading some of the replies here, it would appear what is apparent to me >is not apparent to others. The separation of "single vote" methods and >"multiple vote methods" would seem a clear one at least to me.
I think I understand what you're getting at, Tom, but I just don't think that this is necessarily the *first* distinction that you want to make between single-winner systems. My own opinion is that you would want to divide them by ballot structure first, and then talk about the tally process after that. (I just posted another message on taxonomy which attempts to classify ballots structures in a more bare-bones objective kind of way.) The reason that this is logical to me is because it follows the practical order that is relevant to people in the actual process of voting. Chronologically first is the actual act of voting, when you want to know, "what does the ballot look like?" The tally procedure comes after that. It is very difficult to understand a tally procedure effectively unless you first understand how the ballot works. So, my concern is mostly a pedagogical one, which is appropriate because the page is intended as a teaching resource. The way you have laid it out now, while of course there is a rationale to it, seems like it will be confusing. The terms themselves "single vote" "multiple vote" "pairwise vote" do not make it clear just what is single or multiple about them. To me, it would make more sense to call a two-round runoff election a multiple vote, because each person votes more than once, whereas any one round system would be a single vote system. So I think that the terms are misleading to anyone who doesn't already know how all of the methods work. Also, the sentence "Single vote methods are used exclusively in political elections based on the democratic 'one person, one vote' ideal" seems to rather imply that the non-single vote methods are somehow less democratic. I don't know if you are an IRV fan or a Condorcet fan or what, but the heading reads as a tacit endorsement of IRV over Condorcet. On the other hand, the following sentence "Multiple vote methods give voters more flexibility where tactical voting is less of a concern" is dubious in another way. You list Borda among the multiple vote systems, and I think that pretty much everyone agrees that tactical voting is a big concern in Borda. So, for these reasons, I respectfully request that you change the page back to the way it was, while of course you are welcome to publish your own ideas on a separate web page. my best, James ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info