Trying to define a complete Condorcet based election method:
Single winners, such as governors, are the topic. PR voting for multiple member districts deserves its own debate. Likewise Presidential elections and the Electoral College.
Random? Nothing of such tolerated, except true random resolution to resolve a true tie.
Lotteries? Another word I cannot imagine associating with a public election (I am not into other elections).
IRV? It uses the same ballot as Condorcet, and usually picks the same winner. It has a spoiler problem, requiring rejection even though not as bad as Plurality.
Condorcet? Voter must select best-liked, as with Plurality; then best-liked of what is left; repeating until remainder are equally disliked rejects - takes neither great skill nor understanding, but permits ranked approval of more than one candidate.
Approval? It only lets voter rank candidates as acceptable or rejected - no way to rank a candidate as less than best, yet better than rejected.
Ratings? Forget - these can be difficult since the voter must give, and the system must understand, a number neither are prepared to understand.
Primaries?
Plurality elections NEED primaries because there a party with two candidates in the general election places itself in disadvantage against a party with one candidate.
Plurality elections with multiple similar parties have the same difficulty - which seems to be not solvable for them. Independent candidates are another generator of spoilers for Plurality.
With Condorcet in the general election we do not need primaries for, in their ranking, the voters can rank similar acceptable candidates above unacceptable candidates.
If there is to be a primary anyway, Condorcet has the advantage of being the same method as in the general election. Perhaps operated to pass more than one candidate to the general election.
How many candidates in the general election? Independent candidates SHOULD be practical, but somehow discouraged from overdoing it. Small parties should be able to afford one candidate. Large parties should be able to afford multiple candidates, but discouraged from overdoing this.
How vote? I suggest one list of candidates, with room beside each for ranking. Ranks read as 1 (top) to 9, with indecipherable ranked below 9 (CAN happen with paper ballots such as absentee; should be impossible with electronic voting machine). Blanks are lower as not voted:
A number repeated gives all with that number the same rank.
Skipping numbers does not disturb order of used numbers.
1-9, indecipherable, and blank, is 11 choices - more than likely useful with even 99 candidates, but anyone seeing a problem here go solve it.
Truncation PERMITTED: As an extreme, a voter happy with Plurality's service should be permitted to vote for one preferred candidate, and be done with it. We are also supporting the voter who had pains with Plurality spoilers and NEEDS to rank multiple candidates.
Write-ins permitted: Must be, though each voter may be restricted to a single written per candidate list.
Counting votes:
(wv) seems the appropriate choice. If two voters rank a pair of candidates (a=b) as equal, then (a>b) and (b>a) should each get one count.
The Condorcet array for each precinct, the whole district, and any meaningful subset of the district, should be public.
Cycles CAN happen, and should be recognized as near ties. How to resolve cycles must be solved before system is ready for voting.
Write-ins counted: Yes, as if one more candidate - each of which can be voted for by more than one voter (could demand advance notice but, right now, no notice makes sense to me).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
