Hi all,
In response to a California columnist's call for proportional-representation <http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/columns/walters/story/ 10386675p-11306421c.html>, I wanted to suggest an overhaul of electoral policies based on Condorcet-style voting. However, this discussion seems to indicate that the term 'preferential voting' has way too many connotations, especially around IRV.
From a users perspective, I think the most salient feature of these systems is that voters (on the front-end) can list multiple options in order of preference. How those votes are counted is really a secondary (back-end) consideration -- what I'd consider an implementation detail, albeit a crucial one.
Therefore, for purposes of a high-level letter to a newspaper, I'd like to use the term "rank-order voting." That's more of a front-end view than the terms 'ranked ballots', which is how the counting system views them. I would probably still refer to Robert's Rules indirectly, as in:
One way to improve participation in California's electoral process is the use of rank-order voting, also called "preferential voting" in Robert's Rules of Order. This allows voters to rank options in order of preference, rather than merely picking a single favorite; done properly, it makes it easier to vote sincerely rather than having to worry about strategic considerations such as vote-splitting.
That is, I want to present the concept in a way that avoids the IRV vs. Condorcet discussion for now, but highlights the overall benefits. As such, is that a reasonably accurate (if incomplete) statement? Any suggestions on better phrasing?
Thanks, - Ernie P.
NORMAAL - the Network of Radical Middle Activists and Learners http://RadicalCentrism.org/normaal
On Aug 22, 2004, at 1:42 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Aug 22, 2004, at 1:54 PM, Steve Eppley wrote:On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 07:08:06 -0700 Steve Eppley wrote:
Hi,
Check out the definition of "preferential voting" in the Scott, Foresman book on Robert's Rules of Order.
I don't have a copy but my recollection is that it
defines preferential voting as any voting method in which the voters express their orders of preference--
my words, not theirs--and it offers IRV as one example. Their use of IRV as an example could explain why some people now believe the term is a synonym for IRV.
Robert's likes repeated balloting much better, but concedes that is not always practical.
They offer IRV (by description, not by name) as an example, and say nothing against other preferential methods such as Condorcet.
Yes. They do point out problems with IRV. In particular, that it can easily defeat the best compromise. It would be nice if someday they discuss a better preference order method.
--Steve
Trivia:
1990 edition was Scott, Foresman.
2000 edition is Perseus Publishing and is current - words on Preferential look identical to me.
www.robertsrules.com says there is now a CD-ROM with the rules.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
