Re: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>]

At 12:09 23.06.2000 -0500, Weisberg wrote:

>Therefore, I  move to amend Harald's motion to provide for three ballot 
>choices:
>
>a.  Harald's motion;
>
>b.  Harald's motion, but with IRV instead of the 50% requirement, changing:
>
>      "The alternative selected by more than 50% of the cast votes wins."
>
>to:
>
>      "Multi-choice votes shall be conducted using Instant Run-off Voting
>      (IRV);"
>
>and
>
>c.  "none of the above."

Eric,
the implications of your note disturb me.
The implications seem to me to be that:

- you have volunteered to write a complete description of Instant Run-Off 
Voting as applied to GA votes. Especially how to deal with ties in the 
number of votes for the alternatives that might be considered for "losers", 
which is the most obvious problem I found when considering IRV.

- you have proposed delaying the vote on the ruleset proposed until such a 
description is written and agreed to.

To me, this delay, and the added complexity in the ruleset, is an example 
of the best being the enemy of the good.

                     Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html