2011/11/1 Kathy Dopp <kathy.d...@gmail.com> > > Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:59:48 -0700 > > From: Andy Jennings <electi...@jenningsstory.com> > > > > My strongest feeling about your recently proposed system is that the > > "three" is so arbitrary. > > > > I believe David is responding to the fact that most of today's US > voting machines would only allow three candidates to be ranked by > voters, so that most IRV implementations in the US only allow three > candidates to be ranked. Even if all candidates could be ranked by > voters, I would only support using IRV methods of counting after all > but two (2) candidates were eliminated using Approval Voting. > Otherwise the vagaries of IRV can pop up. >
You are correct, Kathy, that your process (allowing 3 IRV ranks, eliminating all but 2 using implicit approval, then having a virtual runoff between the 2) is actually quite a good system. But from a FairVote perspective, it has much more of a "problem" with LNH than if you use approval to choose 3 instead of 2. I wonder if there is some good compromise where you cut down to the number of candidates who have more than 1/3 of the 3-way vote or something like that... Jameson > -- > > Kathy Dopp > http://electionmathematics.org > Town of Colonie, NY 12304 > "One of the best ways to keep any conversation civil is to support the > discussion with true facts." > "Renewable energy is homeland security." > > Fundamentals of Verifiable Elections > http://kathydopp.com/wordpress/?p=174 > > View some of my research on my SSRN Author page: > http://ssrn.com/author=1451051 > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info