On Nov 16, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Nov 15, 2010, at 8:40 PM, Bob Richard wrote:
On 11/15/2010 4:58 PM, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
When majority rules, a 51 percent majority can have their way in
election after election. But what other
possible standard is there for democracy and fairness besides
"majority rule?"
For seats in legislative bodies, proportional representation.
for which STV or a more Condorcet-like ordering (what would the
name of that be? Kristofer Munsterhjelm had a Schulze ordering for
Oakland) does well. here in Vermont we just had an election where
for my state senate district, we voted for 6 out of about 15 and
the top 6 vote getters win seats, but that method sorta sucks.
Condorcet doesn't give proportional representation. If you have an
example like:
51: D1 > D2 > D3 > D4
49: R1 > R2 > R3 > R4
and pick the first four, all the Ds will win.
good point. maybe STV would be better for proportionality.
for me, if it's a single winner: "If a majority of voters select
Candidate A over Candidate B then, if at all possible, Candidate B
should not be elected" is the only sensible rule, because of the
converse is so clearly contrary to the concept of the will of the
majority. Any method that cannot be guaranteed to accomplish that
risks the question: e.g. "Why should Bob Kiss be the mayor of
Burlington when 587 more voters expressed on their ballots that
they thought Andy Montroll was a better choice?".
i think you can argue that Condorcet compliant is always preferable
out of point by contradiction. if there is a CW and you elect
someone else, that is always a failure.
I think counterarguments would make use of that the majorities are
not necessarily the same. Those who see no point in Condorcet would
say: "if the leftists prefer A to B and the right-wingers prefer A
to C, that's still short of majority rule".
so let's pick B or C even though a majority of voters (neither
specifically left or right) vote that A is the better choice over
either B or C. the reason why Condorcet (assuming a CW exists) is the
democratic choice has nothing to do with left or right political
alignment. the problem with electing someone other than the CW is
that we, the voters, by a majority have expressed that we want the
CW. otherwise, why not use random chance, or just give the election
to the *minority* candidate?
here's a fundamental philosophical question: why is it better, even in
a two-candidate race, to elect the majority winner? why not have
rules that we elect the minority candidate? (i have my own answers,
but i would be interested in reading some others.)
--
r b-j r...@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
