Dave Ketchum wrote:
With the EC it seems standard to do Plurality - a method with weaknesses
most of us in EM recognize.
Let's do a Constitutional amendment to move up.
I propose Condorcet. One advantage is that states could move up to use
it as soon as ready. States, and even districts within states, could
remain with Plurality until able to move up - with their votes counted
as if they did bullet voting with Condorcet. Approval voting would be
permitted the same way.
To clarify, the US would be a single district, while vote counts
could be published for states and other contained districts, as might be
useful.
I think an NPV-style gradual change would have a greater chance of
succeeding than would a constitutional amendment. The constitutional
amendment requires a supermajority, and would thus be blocked by the
very same small states that benefit from the current Electoral College.
As for the system of such a compact, we've discussed that earlier. I
think the idea of basing it on a Condorcet matrix would be a good one.
That is, states produce their own Condorcet matrices, and then these are
weighted and added together to produce a national Condorcet matrix,
which is run through an agreed-upon Condorcet method.
If all states use Plurality, well, the results are as in Plurality. If
some use Condorcet, those have an advantage, and if some want to use
cardinal weighted pairwise, they can do so. Yet it's technically
possible to use any method that produces a social ordering (by
submitting, if there are n voters and the social ordering is A>B>C, the
Condorcet matrix corresponding to "n: A>B>C"). While imperfect, and
possibly worse than Plurality-to-Condorcet or simple Condorcet matrix
addition, the option would be there, and would be better than nothing.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
