Russ Paielli wrote:
Eric Gorr eric-at-ericgorr.net |EMlist| wrote:
Russ Paielli wrote:
What is too complicated? Nobody knows the exact answer to that
question, of course, but let me tell you what I think.
I think you can forget about any method that cannot be explained in
two or three sentences understandable by persons of average
intelligence. Maybe that can be stretched to four sentences, but
that's really pushing it.
Wouldn't STV then be defined as a complicated method?
It has certainly found acceptance among large populations.
As far as I know, STV is a generalization of IRV for multi-winner
elections. So the reasons for IRV's popularity apply to STV to some
extent. Yes, STV is more complicated than IRV, but I think people tend
to be more open to complexity for multi-winner elections because there
is perhaps no way to achieve proportional representation without it. For
single-winner elections PR doesn't apply and they expect simpler
election rules.
I'm sorry, but I simply don't see any reason to believe this.
--
== Eric Gorr ========= http://www.ericgorr.net ========= ICQ:9293199 ==
"Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for temporal safety
deserve neither to be safe or free." -- Benjamin Franklin
== Insults, like violence, are the last refuge of the incompetent... ===
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
