From: | Adrian Bunk <bunk(at)stusta(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | "Barak A(dot) Pearlmutter" <barak(at)cs(dot)nuim(dot)ie> |
Cc: | spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org, Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> |
Subject: | Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV |
Date: | 2009-12-10 21:59:37 |
Message-ID: | 20091210215936.GB13874@localhost.pp.htv.fi |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
Thread: | |
Lists: | spi-general |
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 09:15:11PM +0000, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> Ian is correct: using the top K Condorcet winners is a very poor
> multiwinner election system, if the goal is to have proportional
> representation.
>
>
> Having studied this a bit, I would suggest that the best currently
> available multiwinner election system for our purposes here, i.e., for
> proportional representation, is Reweighted Range Voting, see
>
> http://www.rangevoting.org/RRV.html
>
> for details. Advantages: with RRV it is really simple to cast a valid
> ballot, ballots can be quite expressive, it is easy to explain how to
> vote, and it is quite simple to calculate the winners. The main
> disadvantage (cannot do per-district tallying) is not a problem for us.
You claim "easy to explain how to vote".
Really?
How do I choose the numbers for giving my vote the maximum desired
effect?
> --Barak.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ian Jackson | 2009-12-11 15:07:51 | Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV |
Previous Message | Barak A. Pearlmutter | 2009-12-10 21:15:11 | Re: Multi-winner Condorcet, vs STV |