Question:
In a large public university of about 42,000 students, with about
7500 of whom vote, what would the ideal electoral system be?
Should the student senate be elected in two elections a year, half
elected in one and vice versa, to allow for the learning curve of new
senators?
In a recent reply, I mentioned 2 criteria met only by
Approval (at least among the methods proposed here).
The criterion about a fixed set of alternatives is called
the Consistency Criterion. The one with the fixed set of
voters is called the Heritage Criterion.
I'm writing now to say that I'm
Mr. Cretney wrote in part-
Here's an example of what I mean. I consider 3 alternatives, the first
two are candidates, the third (C) is whatever happens if no candidate
gets an absolute approval majority.
Sincere preference
A > B > C
None absolutely approved of.
---
D- Choice C is obviously the
Mr. Cretney wrote-
Of course, I don't think we can expect to find a method that finds
the best candidate ALL the time. After all, much of the time the
voters themselves will be wrong. However, I think our goal should
be a method that finds the most likely best candidate based on the
ballots.
F
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 1998 21:02:32 Mike Ositoff wrote:
> >
> >Blake proposes a Marginal Majority Criterion, but, except for
> >the fact that any pairwise proposition can be called a
> >"majority", his criterion isn't about majority. It's about
> >margins. It should just be called "Margins Criteri
On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 19:04:47 DEMOREP1 wrote:
>The problem with ALL examples with changed votes is that there is only ONE
>election at a time-- NOT continuous replays of the election with some voters
>knowing how other voters have voted so that they can change their votes and
>produce strange new
On Tue, 20 Oct 1998 20:32:37 DEMOREP1 wrote:
>Mr. Cretney wrote in part-
>
>Definition of Sincere Voting
>
>There should be some standard that makes sure a method
>matches what we consider a definition of a sincere vote. For example,
>some people advocate Approval and define a sincere vote to m
On Tue, 20 Oct 1998 21:02:32 Mike Ositoff wrote:
>
>Blake proposes a Marginal Majority Criterion, but, except for
>the fact that any pairwise proposition can be called a
>"majority", his criterion isn't about majority. It's about
>margins. It should just be called "Margins Criterion".
Maybe I s
U.K. Looks Set to Delay Changes in Parliamentary Voting System
London, Oct. 25 (Bloomberg) -- U.K. politicians will be handed a report this
week calling for changes to the country's voting system, but the indications
are that the government is in no hurry to implement them.
The report is the
