Hi,
--- Kathy Dopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Thanks for your comments Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (what name should I call
> you?)
>
> I do find that ballots (2nd choices) of some, but not all
> voters is considered with IRV, and hence my opinion is that it does
> not treat all voters' ballots equally and should be considered illegal
> under any law that requires the ballots of all voters to be treated
> equally.
>
> I find there to be many scenarios where IRV voting makes a candidate a
> winner who is not supported by the most number of voters and I do not
> support it and in fact I oppose IRV.
>
> There must be better methods.
I do not like IRV either, and I do think there are better methods, but I
could not agree that it does not treat all ballots equally.
The fact that IRV sometimes regards second preferences and sometimes
doesn't is due to the logic of the algorithm and is not random or
prejudicial. One of the advantages of IRV is that IRV only looks at the
lower preferences when it can only be of use to that voter, so that there
is no incentive to provide a limited ranking.
Virtually all "superior" election methods contain "if this then do that"
logic. I guess Approval would be the main exception. Maybe Bucklin.
But I don't think any pairwise-oriented method would stand a chance of
meeting your criteria if IRV doesn't.
Kevin Venzke
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail
http://mail.yahoo.fr
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
