Jameson Quinn wrote:
Russ's message about simplicity is well-taken. But the most successful
voting reform is IRV - which is far from being the simplest reform. Why
has IRV been successful?
I want to leave this as an open question for others before I try to
answer it myself. The one answer
Bob Richard wrote:
It turns that real live voters (including real live politicians) care
a lot about the later-no-harm criterion, even if they don't know what
it's called.
If true, that is unfortunate. Perhaps we would have to pick a better
criterion that is also easy to understand,
Also, I think IRV's seemingly intuitive nature has something to do with it.
For those who *did* investigate more deeply, IRV seemed sensible, too:
instead of holding a bunch of expensive runoffs, collect all the required
information at once and then act as if there were runoffs. That fails to
2011/7/8 Andy Jennings electi...@jenningsstory.com
Also, I think IRV's seemingly intuitive nature has something to do with it.
For those who *did* investigate more deeply, IRV seemed sensible, too:
instead of holding a bunch of expensive runoffs, collect all the required
information at once
On 8.7.2011, at 17.16, Andy Jennings wrote:
Also, I think IRV's seemingly intuitive nature has something to do with it.
For those who *did* investigate more deeply, IRV seemed sensible, too:
instead of holding a bunch of expensive runoffs, collect all the required
information at once and
On Jul 8, 2011, at 10:43 AM, Juho Laatu wrote:
On 8.7.2011, at 17.16, Andy Jennings wrote:
Also, I think IRV's seemingly intuitive nature has something to do
with it. For those who *did* investigate more deeply, IRV seemed
sensible, too: instead of holding a bunch of expensive runoffs,
Hi,
--- En date de : Ven 8.7.11, Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_el...@lavabit.com a
écrit :
Bob Richard wrote:
It turns that real live voters (including real live
politicians) care a lot about the later-no-harm criterion,
even if they don't know what it's called.
If true, that is
Russ's message about simplicity is well-taken. But the most successful
voting reform is IRV - which is far from being the simplest reform. Why has
IRV been successful?
I want to leave this as an open question for others before I try to answer
it myself. The one answer which wouldn't be useful
I actually already touched this question in another mail. And the argument was
that (in two-party countries) IRV is not as risky risky from the two leading
parties' point of view as methods that are more compromise candidate oriented
(instead of being first preference oriented). I think that is
It turns that real live voters (including real live politicians) care a
lot about the later-no-harm criterion, even if they don't know what it's
called.
--Bob Richard
On 7/7/2011 3:43 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
I actually already touched this question in another mail. And the argument was that
On Jul 7, 2011, at 7:40 PM, Bob Richard wrote:
It turns that real live voters (including real live politicians)
care a lot about the later-no-harm criterion, even if they don't
know what it's called.
They need to learn that Condorcet offers less painful response than
what IRV is
11 matches
Mail list logo
