on where the original top-two and final
top-two differ that it will sour people towards IRV and ALL election
reforms.
As I've long said "Plurality is the enemy". It is "default" when people
can't agree on anything else.
I like to visualize a "progression"
r to debate candidates with a much lower
popularity - afterall they've little to win, and much to lose in such
publicity. Still, I don't think I'd mind if the first debate (5% approval) had
10 candidates and Kerry and Bush didn't show until later debates, and then we
voters could judge the competition and hear issues the top-two refuse to
discuss.
Tom Ruen
d as a harmless option, even if a majority may
still reject it as unnecessary.
I can't offer any serious interest in
"approval count" methods for politics. I judge them "mostly harmless"
for affecting winners, and don't expect there ever to be a political majorit
ot;Ratings" since it has no article written about
it, but put it in a "Multiple round" category based on a one-line
description.
Comments or suggestions are welcome.
Sincerely,
Tom Ruen
P.S. I added a quick listing for those (nonparty vote) at the end under (B),
but I'm le
Adam,
YES, I believe ideally for any type of voting should allow the possibility
for detecting spoiled ballots at the time of voting (rather than at the time
of counting), and then the voter can have a chance to revote correctly.
Counting equipment available at each voting location can perform th
ballot. However giving voters the chance to offer
illogical preferences allows an extra "consistency check" to prevent voters from
misranking because they were voting too quickly.
Tom Ruen
ce accidental misvotes. I like the option of
tied votes in many systems, but I don't think it is essential. A system that
can catch bad votes and allow voters to vote again is superior to adding
special counting rules for tied rankings/votes.
Tom Ruen
P.S. I inserted limited comments below...
asonably with "Ratings"? (I say no)
3. Do "Ties permitted" really deserve to be a subcategory? (I think a
"counting type", distinguishing between single counts "Plurality, approcal,
Borda" and multiple counts is more useful.)
Tom Ruen
***
http://en.
That might be more acceptable to members on this
list. I added a third level: Multiple counts whether there is forced elimination
involved. (You might argue single count methods have forced elimination also,
but it is irrelevant since there's no recount after the
elimination.)
I'd sti
ion (Voting with one set of
ranked ballots) or two rounds of voting. When there are many candidates and less
informed voters, it can be distracting to have to do everything in one round. If
voters are willing I'd prefer allowing two rounds of actual voting to make sure
all preferences offered are well considered.
Thanks for listening. I apologize for being too long-winded. :)
Sincerely,
Tom Ruen
there is still disagreement in the hardest cases. I am merely
continuing his story and seeing what Condorcet chose to
ignore.
If I have a point, it is to suggest that Condorcet
may be more negligent than supporters wish to admit, and even if everyone agrees
that Condorcet picks a best winner, I'd like recognition when a pairwise winner
is picked without core support of plurality counts.
Thanks for listening.
Sincerely,
Tom Ruen
gives a tie between B and C with one loss each. I
somewhat like it that my count can't choose between them since each have
some virtue for different voters, although a true method would need to be
willing to be more decisive. (Perhaps looking at loss-margins from each
subset? I'll leav
12 matches
Mail list logo
