[fwd: missent]
Tom Ruen wrote:
> My point is a runoff process works to identify strong candidates and
so this
> should be a minimum reform over plurality.
Agreed. Plurality is sick, and IRV would be a good deal better. If it's
a choice
between IRV or Plurality I'd prefer IRV - but I'd prefer Co
>If a majority supports a single candidate, any method may do. The question
>is how do you convince people to compromise to find a majority among 3 or
>more strong choices.
Oh is that the question? I thought the question was about what
majority rule means with more than 2 candidates. I answered
- Original Message -
From: "MIKE OSSIPOFF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 3:33 AM
Subject: Re: [EM] Unranked IRV versus Approval - divergent winners exist!
>
> >Because there IS no best that will be agreed by al
ent: Monday, April 02, 2001 3:17 AM
Subject: Re: [EM] Unranked IRV versus Approval - divergent winners exist!
>
>
>
> Ok, there's no getting through to Tom or Don on this issue.
>
> What this shows is that, with so many ways to count ranked ballots,
> lots of people w
>Because there IS no best that will be agreed by all.
But presumably there are some methods that seem to _you_ to be better
than others. So why should you advocate less.
Majority rule is not a
>well defined concept with 3 or more choices.
...certainly not by IRVies. There are 2 definitions of
Ok, there's no getting through to Tom or Don on this issue.
What this shows is that, with so many ways to count ranked ballots,
lots of people will be confused about it, and there's a good chance
that we'll end up with a rank-count, IRV in particular, that's nowhere
near as good as Approval.
e N and N*(N-1)/2 elections which must be merged
somehow to pick a winner.
Tom
- Original Message -
From: "Martin Harper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] Unranked IRV versus Approval - divergent winne
[some snippage: apologies if I've mis-snipped, but I wanted to keep some vague
attempt at focus]
Tom Ruen wrote:
> Plurality among 3 is like a game of chicken between toy cars and real cars,
> except the toy cars can afford to crash while the big ones often manage to
> get wrecked too!
> Runoff
nough to win.
Tom Ruen
- Original Message -
From: "Martin Harper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] Unranked IRV versus Approval - divergent winners exist!
> Tom Ruen wrote:
>
> > About the
Tom Ruen wrote:
> About the instability of elimination among 3 strong candidates, in ranked or
> unranked IRV, I'm still not overly afraid. Small spoilers are the more
> common enemy.
Well, they are at the moment, cause Plurality kills off small spoilers before
they have a chance to grow into la
be we can actually
have some more serious debates between candidates rather than who is going
to give the biggest tax cuts or entitlements to voters.
Tom Ruen
- Original Message -
From: "Bart Ingles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 29,
Tom Ruen wrote:
>
> Finally, I'll ask a bigger question than my original one (Unranked-IRV or
> Plurality):
>
> If we are limited to unranked ballots, for single seat, single ballot
> elections, which method would you prefer: Plurality, Unranked-IRV or
> Approval voting? (or some other method?)
Well! Unranked-IRV does diverge from Approval voting, although perhaps only
barely!
Being fundamentally lazy, I did a computer search! :)
For a simple survey, I searched for ballots {A,B,C,AB,BC,AC} with counts
0..9 for each. (10^6=1 million elections)
--
Example #1: (21 voters)
App
13 matches
Mail list logo
