On the surface I like Jameson's idea of creating a peer-reviewed
election-methods publication. I certainly understand his frustration
with Wikipedia, and a peer-reviewed election-methods publication is
one way to deal with the problem that Wikipedia has been -- in my
opinion -- taken over by editors to the exclusion of subject-matter
experts.
Ironically part of the problem may be that the Wikimedia Foundation
(which runs Wikipedia) uses the Condorcet-Schultze method to elect not
just the most popular candidate, but to also elect what they
mistakenly believe to be the "second-most popular" candidate, and
successively-most popular candidates. In other words, they fail to
understand that using a single-winner method to get multiple-winner
results is wildly unfair. Of course they need something like VoteFair
representation ranking or Schulze-STV.
i dunno exactly how they do their ordering at Wikipedia (to get 2nd, 3rd
place winners using Schulze), but would you say if the Condorcet
criterion was met for each subset, would it be unfair to just identify
the top CW, then kick him/her out of the set of candidates and do it
again to identify the CW in the remaining set? it seems logical to me
to say that after the top CW is removed from the candidate set, that if
a CW exists in the remaining set, wouldn't that be fair to call the
"2nd-most popular" candidate?
--
r b-j r...@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
