On FPTP/plurality nomenclature:
I always thought that FPTP would actually be a better description of IRV than for plurality. You have a post or goal (votes from 50%+1 voters). You have a method for assigning votes round after round (successive elimination and transfer). The first to reach that goal wins.
I always thought that FPTP would actually be a better description of IRV than for plurality. You have a post or goal (votes from 50%+1 voters). You have a method for assigning votes round after round (successive elimination and transfer). The first to reach that goal wins.
Of course, I think Instant Runoff Voting is an even better description than FPTP, so I wouldn't want to discard the label "IRV", I'm just saying that FPTP always struck me as ill-suited for describing plurality.
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 22:13:28 -0700
From: Bart Ingles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EM] Re: plurality, FPTP and runoff voting
To: EM List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I always thought the term would have been more descriptive of approval
voting. To go with the Olympic sprint analogy, each runner has his or
her own lane to run in. The presence of slower runners has no bearing
on the length of the race or on the amount of time it takes for the
winner to reach the finish line.
A good analogy for Plurality voting with two runners would be to have
the runners start at opposite ends of the same lane. The runner who
gets the farthest before the inevitable head-on collision is the
plurality winner. I don't know how to extend this to more than two
contestants; maybe a pie-eating contest where all participants ni bble at
the same pie?
Bart
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
