On 09/28/2012 10:11 PM, dn...@aol.com wrote:
A > B
Choice C comes along.
C may - head to head ---
1. Beat both
C > A
C > B
2. Lose to both
A > C
B > C
3. Beat A ---- BUT lose to B
C > A > B > C
Thus, obviously, a tiebreaker is needed in case 3.
Obviously perhaps Approval.
i.e. BOTH number votes and YES/NO Approval votes.
Obviously much more complex with 4 or more choices.
---
ANY election reform method in the U.S.A. has to get past the math
challeged appointed folks in SCOTUS.
i.e. ANY reform must be REALLY SIMPLE.
--------
Condorcet applies for legislative bodies and single or multiple
executive/judicial offices.
I think Ranked Pairs is the simplest "strong" Condorcet method. You sort
the pairwise victories so that the strongest comes first, then you go
down the list, adding that victory to the final order unless it would
contradict something you added earlier.
So say you have
100 voters prefer A to B
80 voters prefer B to C
85 voters prefer C to A
which would give you:
First the result must place A higher than B. (Okay.)
Second, the result must place C higher than A. (Okay.)
Third, the result must place B higher than C... but that's impossible
because C is higher than A is higher than B. So skip it.
And the winner is thus C. A comes second, and B third.
-
On the other hand, Schulze is being used more widely, so it's a question
of what will be more persuasive: saying "this thing is simple", or "this
thing is used lots of places".
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
