Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!aiai!jeff From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: CfD: Interest Groups Surveys Message-ID: <1809@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: 22 Feb 90 17:51:46 GMT References: <22196.25d2eed0@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <22212.25d6c149@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <77031@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <22242.25da835b@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1783@skye.ed.ac.uk> <-UV1G9Fxds13@ficc.uu.net> Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Lines: 25 In article <-UV1G9Fxds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1783@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes: >> Not only that, STV is a lose. Something that is everyone's 2nd choice >> can be eliminated. >And any other voting scheme is also susceptible to voting paradoxes. True. >If you only eliminate names at the top level that becomes very unlikely. Why? I guess I'm not sure what you mean by this. >When it works, which is almost all the time, it does the best job of >any alternate system at finding the most desirable name (as opposed to >preference voting, which gives you the least undesirable name). I'm not so sure it works most of the time or that it finds the most desirable name. In elections in the UK, for example, in a 3-way election almost everyone's 2nd choice would be the center party candidate, who would be eliminated on the first round. What do you think of "approval voting" (cast one vote for each choice you "approve of", choice with greatest total wins) as alternative system? (For newsgroups, this fairly similar to running votes on all the proposals and then picking the one that won by the greatest majority.