2011/5/30 Kathy Dopp <kathy.d...@gmail.com> > > Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 23:41:47 +0100 (BST) > > From: Kevin Venzke <step...@yahoo.fr> > > To: election-meth...@electorama.com > > Subject: Re: [EM] Remember toby KD > >> Kevin, > >> > >> Could you please explain in fairly simple terms how > >> Condorcet/Approval works? > >> > > > > The way it works is that the voters will submit rankings. Anybody who > > is ranked is considered approved. (I strongly recommend against making > > approval something that is explicitly marked. If people want a method > > like that, don't use this one.) > > > > We will check to see whether there is a Condorcet winner. If there is, > > he wins. That's phase 1. > > > > If there's not, the approval winner wins. All rankings count exactly the > > same, as one vote. I.e. everybody you gave any ranking to is getting 1 > > approval point from your ballot. > > > > It is possible to limit the approval phase to candidates who are in the > > Smith or Schwartz sets, but I'm not too concerned about that personally. > > > > The most obvious downside to C//A is that, since phase 2 levels all > > your rankings, the later-no-harm failures are worse: You are more likely > > to regret ranking more candidates. This is like Approval of course. > > > > But the phase 2 leveling (that is to say, the approval part) is also > > why burial is deterred: It's undesirable to vote for candidates you don't > > actually like, because you will be stuck voting for them (equal to > > your favorites) if you succeed in forcing the method into phase 2 (which > > would be the goal of burial). > > > > Hope that helps. > > > > Kevin > > > > Thanks Kevin, I like the simplicity of that plan -- Condorcet/Approval. > > Have you thought about only counting the first two rank ballot choices > of voters if the Approval step becomes necessary due to a Condorcet > cycle? With only three ballot positions in the US I wonder if some > voters might rank their last choice third and not really understand > they were "approving" that candidate? > > If ballot design considerations limited the number of ranks available for Condorcet/Approval, one could still use equal ranking to approve an unlimited number of candidates. I agree that an explicit "unapproved" ranking, though theoretically unnecessary because it's synonymous with a blank ballot line, would help voters understand what's happening. Even just two approved ranks would be a good system, but I believe that any serious proposal should advocate at least three approved ranks (four ranks overall), because I suspect that would get more support.
JQ
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info