i was looking for Kristofer's posts to EM and came across this, i may
have missed it:
On Jun 22, 2011, at 5:30 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Jun 21, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Markus Schulze wrote:
Hallo,
Eric Maskin, a Nobel laureate, is currently very
active in promoting the Black method.
and we've all been groping for a name for this primary voting
criteria that is not this non-American, Frenchie, probably sorta
pinko-socialist secular humanist "intellectual" (did i mention
*not* American?) whose heresy is leading us away from the One True
Faith of the Single Affirmative Vote. we have sects in the One
True Faith, some of us believe in the sanctity of the Two Party
System: "if yer ain't fer us, you agin' us. and pass da
ammunition, Ma."
I've mentioned it before, but I think Condorcet enjoys an additional
advantage here. Say there's a CW and he is not elected. Then that
means a majority prefers the CW to the candidate who was elected,
and if that majority is annoyed enough, it could try to repeal the
voting method in question. However, if the method always elects the
CW, any attempt to do so must face a majority who did prefer that CW
to all the other candidates, and if that majority feels the
candidate is good enough, they can block the repeal by virtue of
being a majority.
it's curious to me, Kristofer, that this is a theorem that states that
Condorcet-compliant will eventually, naturally become the norm because
eventually the majority will be well aware of their status (as the
majority) and know their loss, be outraged, and change the system to
something different. until Condorcet is landed on, there will always
be the probabilistic pressure to change to something different.
i dunno if i would be as optimistic as that. i don't think that
people think about it.
--
r b-j r...@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
