Re: What OVC does not address

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Fri Apr 16 2004 - 14:04:50 CDT

At 12:13 PM -0500 4/16/04, Jeff Almeida wrote:
>I also agree with all of that, to a point, and it's certainly not where I
>was going (and for the record, I'm not nuts about IRV, and one of the
>things I think they do right here in Texas is requiring a runoff
>election between the top-two vote-getters when no candidate receives a
>majority).
>
>However, where I think we would be remiss is in failing to state something
>to the effect that, "While our system can certainly determine the
>plurality winner of an election, we would strongly encourage jurisdictions
>to review the technical literature surrounding the failings of single-vote
>plurality results in multicandidate races, and adopt a system less prone
>to mathematical paradox." As far as I am concerned, that is still a
>technical question, not a political one: we're not telling them what to
>do, we're telling them that a particular approach has been proven not to
>work; if they want REALLY compelling evidence we can point them to Dr.
>Saari's paper on the "election" of Jesse Ventura.

It does make sense for the OVC to indicate that we can handle such
different voting schemes if the jurisdiction wants them.

Best regards,
Arthur

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Fri Apr 30 23:17:09 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 30 2004 - 23:17:29 CDT