Hi, Paul K wrote, in part: > James Gilmour wrote, in part: >> But I agree with Steve's comment in his second message >> of today. Why on earth would anyone want to discuss Borda? >> It is fundamentally flawed and should be consigned to >> the museum of electoral science, no matter what >> Don Saari may say. > > As I have attempted to point out before, criteria such > as "clone independence" do not come into play when what > is being discussed by a group is "which of these four > options should the group select as its primary?" > There's no way to "nominate clones", since there is > no "nomination process" involved that could introduce > "clones." -snip-
True, but lack of clone independence is not Borda's only problem, as the anecdote about the vote to hire 1 of 4 economists showed. And I speculate that in most decisions, the set of potential alternatives includes many clones. But I accept Paul's point. There might be some decision, somewhere, where Borda would be a good voting method. On the other hand, in that presumably small set of decisions, some "cardinal ratings" voting method might be even better than Borda. --Steve ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info