Monday, December 13, 2004, 5:23:09 PM, Julian wrote:
JM> Don't mix up concepts, please. Complexity doesn't necessarily contradict
JM> openness. Besides Condorcet voting isn't really that complex. You can
JM> even do the tallying of a Condorcet vote using a pen and a sheet of paper.
JM> It's not rocket science.
Good to hear. My comments are caused by my not seeing a council vote that
the voting system used the first time around needed changing.
Your post in spf-council therefore looks out of place, I'd have expected
a council call for discussion in spf.discuss to canvas alternative
solutions where your post would have been very helpful.
JM> The fact that conventional voting methods are even simpler than Condorcet
JM> voting is the very reason for them being flawed. Please read the
JM> Wikipedia articles I referred to, they're really not that long.
I don't have a problem with this....... my problem is that I see your
post and Mark Shewmaker's example as seeking to solve a voting problem
that doesn't exist, namely adding weight to votes to create a clear
winner. We are instead when voting for council members by seeking to
exclude the handful of standees with the lowest number of votes - so
that the top 5 remain.
I obviously need to do some proper research for Condorcet but a quick
back of envelope test shows me that while Condorcet voting may be
strategy-free for a large constituency when it comes to the small number
of votes being cast here then strategy is instead magnified.
JM> I am not aware of such a problem. Could you please elaborate? Even if
JM> that was the case, to the best of my knowledge other voting methods have
JM> even bigger flaws when dealing with a small number of votes (cf. Mark
JM> Shewmaker's latest posting on the topic).
As above (and reply to Mark) ranking is the wrong tool for the job,
choosing one absolute winner from a 5:5 choice (5 voters/5 choices) is
totaly different from 200+ voters choosing 5 from 12 and eliminating the
7 with the lowest votes where we are not looking for a clear winner.
JM> Ranking candidates for council membership differently doesn't imply giving
JM> them different legitimacy.
It should not, but in practice allows someone with higher ranked vote
to put pressure on someone with a lower vote level. There is then
less incentive to perform as a team and judge on topics on merit.
JM> No governmental represantative system on earth that I am aware of assigns
JM> less weight to electees who received less (or lower ranked) votes.
Mmmm.. Disagee. See who gets powerful jobs but with less popular
vote from their party. I see anything that seeks to do anything
more than select 5 council members as divisive to the future
performance of the council, and a closer vote among the top 5