Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5)
> > > Single Transferable Vote biases the selection in favor of first
> > > preferences at the expense of other preferences. Can you think of a
> > > better kind of criteria for making the selection?
> >
> > Other methods can be found at the URLs I cited at the start of the
> > thread. "Reversing the fewest and weakest pairwise defeats" (ie, using
> > the smallest possible casting vote) is probably another reasonable
> > alternative. But, as I said, I don't profess to know enough about
> > cycle breakers to really say.
>
> But: I'm not asking "are there other methods", I'm asking "what's a
> better criteria?" and "why?"
Whether one criteria is better than another is of course a matter of
opinion.
Above, you prefer Single Transferable Vote (which also appears to be
called "Instant Runoff Voting" or "IRV" on most of the voting method
websites) because it "biases selection in favor of first preferences
at the expense of other preferences". Obviously, you think this is a
good thing.
Others may prefer other methods because they reverse the preferences of
the fewest number of voters. This is a different criteria. Is it
better? I think so, and so do others. You may not. Most of the
"traditional" Condorcet resolution methods favor this criteria.
I think the best we can do is list a bunch of alternatives, with
explanations and descriptions of their advantages and disadvantages,
and discuss from there.
>
> I'll note that the URL you cited doesn't have anything equivalent to
> Single Transferrable Vote. [So it's not comprehensive.] I don't think
> "my favorite web site doesn't mention this system" somehow makes the
> systems it proposes to be somehow superior.
The URL I'm looking at does not discuss IRV under Condorcet resolution
methods, but it does discuss IRV as a technique for general elections
(i.e., an alternative to Condorcet). I'm looking at http://
www.electionmethods.org/, which does have some faults (it has an
-extreme- bias towards Condorcet and against plurality and IRV, for
instance).
> The nice thing about Single Transferrable Vote is that it automatically
> makes first preference votes more important than second preference votes
> (and so on). There are few systems at the URL you cited which even
> attempt this.
Most of the Condorcet resolution methods I've seen don't attempt that
because they don't see it as a valid criteria. They see overruling the
fewest number of votes to be a valid criteria.
Actually, I did find one description of a voting concern that does
severely impact IRV. IRV requires the multiple examination of every
ballot, which can be prohibitive if the number of ballots is huge, or
fragile, etc. Since most voting reform sites are concerned with reform
of real-world elections, where there may be millions of voters, this is
a bigger concern for them than it is for us. And this is a valid
criteria for them to consider. The Condorcet resolution methods
normally discussed can all be computed solely from the aggregate voting
data, not needing to further examine individual ballots.
>
> > This sort of situation happens no matter how you resolve a cyclic tie,
> > though. You pretty much have to be "unfair" in some sense to choose a
> > winner. As I said, I'm inclined to suspect that there other means are
> > likely to be more optimal, although I'm not clear exactly how.
>
> It really sounds more as if you want to find faults in the constitution
> than you've thought this through and have a better alternative to propose.
No voting system is going to be 100% "fair" to all voters. The
question remains, however: How do we determine "fairness" to evaluate
different methods?
>
> That's not in and of itself a bad thing, but it does lead to a lot
> of talk.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Raul
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
--
Buddha Buck bmbuck@14850.com
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
Reply to: