From: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Election results |
Date: | 2007-08-07 17:57:50 |
Message-ID: | 20070807175750.GA30493@phlogiston.dyndns.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
Thread: | |
Lists: | spi-announce spi-general |
On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 02:51:24PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Anyway, should/how could we try to fix this proportionality failure?
I don't believe Condorcet of any stripe is intended to fix the
proportionality you seem to be interested in. My dim recollection of
Condorcet, from the days when I studied voting systems > 10 years ago,
was that it was intended to solve the problem where some (largish)
percentage of voters have _none_ of their preferences reflected. The
idea here is that voters are more willing to accept their second-best
(or third- or whatever-best) choice in preference to the thing they
regard as worst. This tends to mean that polarising choices are
always excluded, and that exclusion is regarded as a feature and not
a bug.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
Everything that happens in the world happens at some place.
--Jane Jacobs
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2007-08-07 18:02:35 | Re: Election results |
Previous Message | Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho | 2007-08-07 17:30:13 | Re: Election results |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2007-08-07 18:02:35 | Re: Election results |
Previous Message | Jimmy Kaplowitz | 2007-08-07 17:32:54 | Re: Making the ballots secret |