Juho,
--- Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> >>> In the first round you vote FOR one candidate. You also vote
> >>> AGAINST one
> >>> candidate. If someone has more than half of the FOR votes, they are
> >>> elected. If someone has more than half of the AGAINST votes, they
> >>> are
> >>> disqualified. Then the second round is between the two candidates
> >>> with
> >>> the most FOR votes who have not been disqualified.
> >>
> >> I'm always a bit careful with the "against" votes. If there are e.g.
> >> three strong parties the supporters of the other parties might vote
> >> the candidate of one party out.
> >
> > ???
>
> My comment was indeed quite confusing. I guess I was in a hurry to
> reach the end of the mail.
>
> This method doesn't seem to be as bad with negative votes as some
> other methods are but there are some risks e.g. in the following
> example. There are three candidates with first place support 40 A, 30
> B, 30 C. Later preferences are not strong. B supporters notice that
> if the final round will be between B and A it looks quite probable
> that A would win. Therefore they give their AGAINST vote to A. C
> supporters follow the same logic. A gets >50% AGAINST votes. The
> problem is that the AGAINST votes were strategic and not sincere
> (many of them at least). A could have been the best candidate (with
> 40% support).
If this is the worst thing that occurs, I am not worried. The A voters
at least have an opportunity to make a selection between B and C in
the second round.
Also, this example doesn't seem to envision any sort of political
spectrum beneath the candidates and voters, which to my mind is not
very realistic. In a setting where that is realistic, I could not
really advocate this method.
Kevin Venzke
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
