Concorcet methods (was Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board elections))
chealer at gmail.com
Fri Mar 3 01:31:51 UTC 2017
On 2017-03-02 14:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board elections)"):
>> Ian and Joshua are dismissing these concerns, but have not given any
>> technical grounds, either now or in the previous round of discussion.
> AV's virtue over Condorcet is that Condorcet is very hard to count in
> a nontrivial election without using computers. This means that
> Condorcet is not suitable for high-stakes public elections.
The purpose of elections is not to count. You'll have to do better to show that Condorcet is not suitable for high-stakes public elections.
> (And it
> explains why civil society orgnisations which care about public voting
> reform don't advocate Condorcet-based systems.)
Unless that discusses specific civil society organisations which care about public voting reform, that is quite wrong. I won't counter with a simplistic explanation, but merely point out that most such organisations are interested in multi-district elections.
More information about the Spi-general