2011/7/4 Russ Paielli <russ.paie...@gmail.com> > Thanks for the feedback, Jameson. After thinking about it a bit, I realized > that the method I proposed probably suffers from strategy problems similar > to IRV. But at least it avoids the summability problem of IRV, which I > consider a major defect. > > OK, here's another proposal. Same thing I proposed at the top of this > thread, except that voters can vote for more than one candidate, as in > Approval Voting. How does that stack up? > > By the way, I took a look at SODA, and I must tell you that I don't > consider it a "practical reform proposal." It's way too complicated to ever > be adopted for major public elections. The method I just proposed is already > pushing the limit for complexity, and it is much simpler than SODA. >
The method you just proposed *is* SODA. That is, you've given the one-sentence summary, and SODA works out the details. Voters are used to the fact that laws typically have both a pithy name/goal and an actual content which is paragraphs of legalese. Even approval voting or plurality take paragraphs to define rigorously. JQ
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info