On 15 Mar 2005 at 08:34 PST, Ted Stern wrote:
On 14 Mar 2005 at 22:02 PST, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
Dear Forest, Russ, and Ted!
I suggest that we call the method we discussed under various names in the last days ARC (Approval Runoff Condorcet) and continue to study its properties, especially its anti-strategy properties.
One more thing I'd like to clarify.
The ballot format part of Russ's ARC aka RAV proposal disallows equal rank and ranking below the approval cutoff.
I do not agree with that part of the proposal. I think that such restrictions are unnecessary and are just another example of caving in and letting IRV advocates frame the alternative voting method debate.
I'm just trying strike a balance between simplicity and effectiveness. I am starting to realize that equal rankings may be worthwhile. As for allowing ranking past the Approval cutoff point, I am still not sold on that, but I am open minded. Think of how much simpler the voter interface will be if it isn't allowed. If we're going to recommend allowing it, we had better be sure it is worth the added "cost." By "cost," I mean not only the added complexity itself, but also the possibility that such added complexity will push the method past the threshold of public acceptability. Note that the simple idea of ranking candidates will stress the limits of public acceptability all by itself.
Another key argument about combining Instant Round-Robin (aka Condorcet) with Approval should be checks and balances. Condorcet alone, Approval alone, or IRV alone can each fail in some situations. But Condorcet augmented by Approval is actually simpler and more resistant to manipulation than Condorcet alone.
Absolutely. More on that later.
By the way, I'm not too crazy about the name "Approval Runoff Condorcet" (ARC). I think "Condorcet with Approval Runoff" (CAR) would be preferable, but I'm not too keen on that name either. Let's think about this some more.
--Russ
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
