And I could go on at length.
> I recall looking into the condorcet system once, can't recall the
> details exactly, but I recall thinking it was a dodgy sham proportion
> representation system designed to avoid a PR outcome. One of many.
> Explain why I'm wrong.
The voting systems in question are single-winner, although they could also be used for multi-seat (PR) elections.
Voting systems are a subset of Social Choice theory of Game Theory. The kind Americans have is called first past the post(FPTP) or "lone mark." It is the least expressive of any system.
Australia currently uses (modified?) Single Transferrable Vote (STV), which is almost identical to Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) used in Vermont and San Francisco. IRV is endorsed by the Greens and the Libertarians.
In 1956, nobel prize winning economist Kenneth Arrow developed Arrow's Theorem, which proved that there is no perfect voting system. However, as their is no perfectly efficient engine (Carnot) there are still better and worse voting systems.
The two types of ballots are Ranked and Approval, where FPTP is a special version of an approval ballot with only one selection made. All the more sophisticated voting, including the weekly College Football rankings (Borda) use Ranked Ballots.
Modern voting theory talk generally talks about conditions that a particular voting system does or does not meet:
Condorcet criterion: If the majority of voters rank candidate X above
all other above all other candidates, X wins.
Monotonic: Increasing the ranking of a candidate (say, from #4 to #2) can't cause that candidate to lose, and lowering their rank on a single ballot can't cause that candidate to win.
Definition of Clones: Clones are any set of candidates (>1) where all voters rank the candidates in adjacent slots. Whether this is #1 and #2, or last and next-to-last, it does not matter. Any group of candidates whom all voters rank equally are clones.
Cloneproof: A voting system is cloneproof if a candidate, or their clone, has no increased chance of winning by having a clone enter the race.
IRV and STV are neither monotonic nor Condorcet.
WHY DO SCHULZE OR TIDEMAN BREAK THE BACKS OF THE PARTIES?
They each reduce the cost, to zero, for expressing second and third choices. They reduce the cost to zero, for third party candidates, to run.
More than a half dozen times in US history a third party has caused its second choice party to lose... and every single time it worked against progressives (where, for sake of argument, Andrew Jackson was more progressive than JQ Adams).
Two anti-slavery candidates (Clay and Cass), and James G Blaine (who was the strictest separation of Church and State candidate ever) lost, and Roosevelt or Taft in 1912 (depending on the House) and Gore in 2000.
If there were no Democrats who fought Nader's participation in 2004, would the race have been better or worse?
> What the fuck is IRV and why are you spouting acronyms without
> bothering to define them? Are you trying to suggest that only dumb
> people wouldn't know what IRV is?
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk