On Jul 8, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
I'm sorry, but aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhh.
I think that people on this list are smart, but this is pathetic. I
don't mean to be hard on Dave in particular. But why is it
impossible to get any two of us to agree on anything? I want to make
a list of systems which are
1. Commonly agreed to be better than approval.
We pretty much agree that approval is a step up from plurality - but
most of us agree that we want a bigger step - but have trouble
agreeing how to do that.
2. Commonly agreed to be simple for an average voter to feel that
they understand what's going on.
Voters should understand, but not necessarily be ready to do for
themselves - leave that to whoever gets assigned to build the system.
I am not asking each person who responds to choose the best or
simplest system according to them. I'm asking everyone to vote in
the poll and approve (rate higher than 0) all systems which meet
those two very low bars. Hopefully, the result will be a consensus.
It will almost certainly not be the two best, simplest systems by
any individual's personal reckoning.
As to the specific comments:
2011/7/8 Dave Ketchum <da...@clarityconnect.com>
What I see:
. Condorcet - without mixing in Approval.
You need some cycle-breaker. Implicit approval is the only order-N
tiebreaker I know; fundamentally simpler than any order-N²
tiebreaker like minimax. You don't have to call it approval if you
don't like the name.
When you look close:
. If approval thinking could get involved when there is a cycle,
we must consider whether this will affect voters' thinking.
. Will not the approval thinking affect what is extracted from the
ballots.
While there are many methods for resolving cycles, might we agree on:
. Each cycle member would be CW if the other cycle members were
set aside - why not demand that the x*x matrix that decided there was
a cycle be THE source for deciding on which cycle member should be
winner.
. Remember that, when we are electing such as a senator or
governor, retrieving new information from the ballots is a complication.
. SODA - for trying, but seems too complex.
I disagree, but I'm biased. I feel that "approve any number of
candidates or let your favorite candidate do it for you; most
approvals wins" is easy to understand. But I can understand if
people disagree, so I'm not criticizing this logic.
Your favorite candidate for, hopefully, getting elected is not
necessarily one you would trust toward getting a good substitute
elected.
. Reject Approval - too weak to compete.
Worse than plurality????????
No - but we should be trying for something better.
JQ
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
