On Thu, 4 Nov 2010, Kathryn Huxtable wrote:
> On 2010-11-04 16:19:41 -0500, Lance Corporal \"Hammer\" Schultz said:
>> On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 19:06:06 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>> Kathryn Huxtable wrote:
>>>> I *strongly* like preference voting, where you rank your preferences
>>>> for the candidates in order. "None of the above" would certainly be an
>>>> option. This is the way Hugo ballots are counted. I've heard that
>>>> Australia uses preference voting as well.
>>>
>>> The system of ranking the candidates 1 through N was called the
>>> Australian system as far back as I can remember so either they do use it
>>> or they used to.
>>
>> It's called single transferable vote and also called the Hare-Clark
>> method. As long as you're using computers, it would seem to be vastly
>> preferable to runoffs.
>
> Well, whatever we call it, I like it. And of course we should be using
> computers, though I like the idea of a paper trail in case something goes
> haywire. (As it tends to.)
Single transferable vote is a slight improvement over vote-for-just-one,
but there are much better methods out there. There is an entire mailing
list for people who are interested in improved election methods. My
personal preference is for various flavors of Condorcet methods, which
I've been putting rotating plugs for (or the URLs thereof) in my .sigs
for years now. See below, for example.
(The simplest soundbite description of Condorcet is "Instant Round-Robin
Voting", by analogy with Single Transferable Vote's other popular title
"Instant Runoff Voting".)
--
--pH http://library.wustl.edu/~manynote
We need a voting system that avoids vote-splitting, reduces the
incentive to compromise, and encourages the growth of third parties!
See http://robla.net/1996/politics/condorcet-explain.html
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
* Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)
|
