On May 11, 2011, at 9:35 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On May 11, 2011, at 3:51 PM, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
James Green-Armytage asked
Quick question for everyone: Do you happen to know when the method
described in the subject line (eliminate the plurality loser until
there is a Condorcet winner) was first proposed?
I get dizzy trying to sort this out and vote for forgetting most of it.
Those of us who agree that a Condorcet winner is a good thing should
question wandering away from the X*X matrix that is the heart of this,
and is enough to determine whether we have a CW, or have a cycle to
decipher.
Each cycle member looks up only to other members for preventing that
member from being CW - so that matrix is as far as we need to look to
decide which is most deserving..
In this thread I see much labor wasted in going back to ballot data
rather than reading what we need from the matrix.
i was impressed with the bottom-two runoff (BTR) in that it's such a
small change to the existing IRV method used in a few places (and
used to be in my place).
but i've been thinking that, while BTR or some other Condorcet
compliant IRV is better than a Condorcet non-compliant IRV, it's
still IRV and the actual method of tabulation does not allow for
precinct summability. if you demand precinct summability (for
reasons of transparency in elections), then it really has to be a
simple Condorcet method where you count pairwise tallies locally,
post publicly and transmit upward the pairwise subtotals. the
election should be decided solely by the totals from the pairwise
subtotals. if Ranked Pairs or Schulze is used, the difference
between totals of a pair of candidates, the "defeat strength", is
part of the decision, but it is a derived value from the pairwise
totals.
Seems like what I wrote above.
Mike Ossipoff advised me to forget it, because (having been
rebuffed himself
after proposing all of these ideas and more) he had found out by
sad experience
that the hard core IRV supporters were too closed minded
i *know* i loosened a few IRV supporters here in Burlington. but,
unfortunately, the "Keep Voting Simple" side that brought us back to
Plurality and Delayed Runoff believe that God herself has ordained
the vote-for-only-one ballot. we won't be revisiting anything with
a ranked ballot again in my lifetime. i hope i'm wrong about that.
to even consider
anything other than pure Hare/STV/AV/IRV. Since that time I have
found a few
staunch IRV supporters that are willing to think about other
possibilities, but
on the whole Mike seems to have been right.
well, when a few more towns toss out IRV, i hope that FairVote gets
the message and starts promoting other tabulation methods than STV
with the ranked ballot. what makes me so mad is that Burlington
people that are IRV supporters (because they are election reform
people and do not believe in the two-party religion), these people
had no idea that there was another way to look at those very same
ballots. Fairvote essentially sold ranked-choice voting with IRV as
if they were the same thing. as if there *is* no ranked-choice
voting without IRV.
And we need to do better educating.
Dave Ketchum
--
r b-j r...@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
