Dear Raphfrk,
you wrote:
It seems to me that the voters, will not be sure which of the main
candidates have a chance.
Under this assumption, your analysis makes sense. But I meant (without
saying so unfortunately) that everybody has perfect information about
the others' preferences.
Btw, I think your original proposal is pretty cool too. I wonder what
the effects of putting a threshold would be on the strategic effects.
For example, if a candidate represents more than 90% of the balls in the
urn, they are declared the winner without drawing any.
Thanks. Such a threshold could be justified in order to keep very
extreme options off. (Usually I don't really care about this detail
since I think any community is well-advised to reduce the set of options
to "constitutional" options before any decision. But that is a different
discussion).
Do you think one could modify the "Anti-STV" approach in a different way
to overcome the cloning problem without making the method majoritarian?
Yours, Jobst
Raphfrk
--------------------
Interesting site
"what if anyone could modify the laws"
www.wikocracy.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOL's new homepage has launched. Take a tour
<http://info.aol.co.uk/homepage/> now.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
