| From: | Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Filipus Klutiero <chealer(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Voting system for elections |
| Date: | 2016-07-19 13:02:18 |
| Message-ID: | 22414.9434.672586.662454@chiark.greenend.org.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | spi-general |
Filipus Klutiero writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
> On 2016-07-18 09:29, Ian Jackson wrote:
> This is especially true given that our variant of Condorcet is still
> interpreting a ballot "1. Z 2. X" as not preferring Z or X to Y,
> which is IMO an extremely serious deficiency in itself.
>
>
> I fail to see how the system could infer any preference about Y from
> a ranking which does not mention Y, and I certainly do not see how
> this would constitute an extremely serious deficiency.
Every other voting system anywhere on the planet treats a ballot
mentioning only X as preferring X to all other candidates.
Every other preferential voting system treats a ballot ranking X 1st,
and Y 2nd, as a preference for X or Y over all other candidates.
That is how voters expect these systems to work.
Our voting system treats a ballot mentioning only X as expressing no
preference whatsoever.
Ian.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Filipus Klutiero | 2016-07-20 11:44:56 | Re: Voting system for elections |
| Previous Message | Filipus Klutiero | 2016-07-19 12:45:10 | Re: Voting system for elections |