Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [RangeVoting] Elections method experts help needed

Expand Messages
  • Bruce Gilson
    On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax ... For once, a comment with which I agree. The problem with IRV seems to be because a good candidate,
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 31, 2009
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
      <abd@...>wrote:

      >
      >
      > ['...]Note that much of the damage done in Instant
      > Runoff Voting is due to eliminations.
      >

      For once, a comment with which I agree. The problem with IRV seems to be
      because a good candidate, with a lot of second-preference support but not
      much first-preference support, gets eliminarted early. This is why I tend to
      think that Bucklin would solve most of IRV's defects.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
      ... And we agree on that, as well. Basic slogan of mine: Count All the Votes. That s exactly what IRV does not do. Bucklin, once the smoke clears, and with
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 10, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        At 09:59 AM 12/31/2009, Bruce Gilson wrote:
        >On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
        ><abd@...>wrote:
        >
        > > ['...]Note that much of the damage done in Instant
        > > Runoff Voting is due to eliminations.
        >
        >For once, a comment with which I agree. The problem with IRV seems to be
        >because a good candidate, with a lot of second-preference support but not
        >much first-preference support, gets eliminarted early. This is why I tend to
        >think that Bucklin would solve most of IRV's defects.

        And we agree on that, as well. Basic slogan of mine:

        Count All the Votes.

        That's exactly what IRV does not do.

        Bucklin, once the smoke clears, and with enough candidates (where the
        winner really isn't obvious, it's a real contest), unless a majority
        candidate appears sooner, does count all the votes, making it quite
        equivalent to Approval. But it is likely that it will encourage more
        appropriate addition of lower-preference approvals, by allowing them
        to be expressed that way, as lower preferences.

        The inability of pure Approval to do this is the major objection
        raised; Bucklin addressed this a century ago, before the
        strategy-free characteristics of Approval Voting were known, before
        Approval Voting had a name. The claim that Approval has never been
        used for a modern public election is simply false; the many Bucklin
        elections were really Approval elections, in substance.

        There is a history, and we should know it.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.