Hi Greg,
--- En date de : Mer 15.10.08, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> What is the worst voting method of all time?
>
> I suggest methods already made up
>
> I suggest antiplurality, if that doesn't count, then...
> hmmm... North
> Carolina's weird version of IRV.
> http://www.fairvote.org/irv/?page=21&articlemode=showspecific&showarticle=2229
>
> 40% to win? 40%?! WHY?
I don't know the rationale behind North Carolina's rule, but this rule
is/was used in Costa Rica for top-two runoff. It's mentioned by Shugart
and Carey in their book "Presidents and Assemblies." They want to suggest
ways to help make presidential democracies less prone to collapse.
The idea (theoretically) is to combine the positive aspects of plurality
and top-two runoff (i.e. with majority required to win on the first round).
Plurality's advantage is that it forces all parties to coalesce around
two candidates, increasing the likelihood that the president (which is
what the book is about) will have some support in the legislature.
The disadvantage is that it can be spoiled by the presence of rather weak
candidates.
TTR's advantage is that it isn't spoiled as easily.
Its disadvantage is that it encourages the nomination of more candidates,
and the winners of the first round may be somewhat arbitrary or have
little support.
Lowering the first-round win requirement to 40% makes it more feasible
to win on the first round by collecting enough votes. In turn this makes
it seem more dangerous to nominate additional candidates who probably
can't win.
However, I doubt TTR is similar to IRV with respect to nomination
incentive.
Kevin Venzke
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
