-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of Julian
Mehnle
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 3:05 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] Condorcet Voting for Council Elections and
Council Votes
John Pinkerton [johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com] wrote:
I am happy to incorporate the opportunity to vote for more than one
option - so a voter could choose 3 out of 5, or maybe all 5, in order
of preference, and the result is based on the preferences. This
eliminates tactical voting and is easy to build in to the existing
voting system.
If that's what you mean by "Concorcet voting" - then it's a breeze :-)
Ranked voting in itself doesn't eliminate strategical voting. It's the
Condorcet method in particular that eliminates it.
Since this seems to have become a hot topic, I went off and read the
articles.
It seems there is more than one type of Condorcet voting, particularly in
determining how to deal with the cases where Condorcet voting does not
produce a result.
Now what exactly are you proposing? The wikipedia lists a bunch of
alternatives.
Now that I've read the articles, I'm on the side of those saying this is to
complex for real world use.
Single Transferable Vote would seem to offer many of the same advantages and
be much simpler.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
That said, whatever the Council decides is fine with me.
Scott Kitterman