Re: Voting system for elections

On 2016-07-19 09:02, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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.

Well, a preferential system should not *allow* such a ballot in the first place.

>
> 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.

This particular concern seems to be a simple user interface issue. Our system should not allow a ballot mentioning a single option.
Evidently, the voting interface could use a lot of work.

I do not see a good reason to change the system in this concern.

>
> Ian.

--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com