|
Post by barocknodrama on Aug 9, 2013 18:36:16 GMT -5
Condorcet method is agreeable to me..
|
|
|
Post by gfjacobs on Aug 11, 2013 15:22:34 GMT -5
details of vote MUST be laid out first, and well-understood by all, BEFORE any voting begins. If it is a complicated mechanism we need to be sure of it. However, we need to be able to do it once.
As we know, VOTING is itself the issue!
|
|
|
Post by Steve Dorst on Aug 12, 2013 21:29:01 GMT -5
details of vote MUST be laid out first, and well-understood by all, BEFORE any voting begins. If it is a complicated mechanism we need to be sure of it. However, we need to be able to do it once. As we know, VOTING is itself the issue! GF: Did you follow the Condercet link? And if so, what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by gfjacobs on Aug 13, 2013 5:21:44 GMT -5
If you mean the wikipedia link, I did.
The description is unduly complex. It can be simplified. It *sounds* basically similar to a voting method where voters list top to bottom candidates and points are assigned based on their position in the ballot, top getting most.
Instead, this requires the vote-off method wherein multiple a vs. b elections take place to determine the aggregate favorite. My issue is that ties are possible when the condorcet paradox situation arises, and you need an alternative to break that tie which can be three-way!.
Thus, even THIS simplified description requires explanation! You thought voting twice was a problem?
At least the preference ranking system above is simple, even if it can allow a tie. A run-off in either plan would have to be the result. Hopefully not a run-off of EVERYONE!
-gf
|
|