On 2016-07-19 09:02, Ian Jackson wrote:
Filipus Klutiero writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
On 2016-07-18 09:29, Ian Jackson wrote:
This is especially true given that our variant of Condorcet is still
interpreting a ballot "1. Z 2. X" as not preferring Z or X to Y,
which is IMO an extremely serious deficiency in itself.
I fail to see how the system could infer any preference about Y from
a ranking which does not mention Y, and I certainly do not see how
this would constitute an extremely serious deficiency.
Every other voting system anywhere on the planet treats a ballot
mentioning only X as preferring X to all other candidates.
Well, a preferential system should not *allow* such a ballot in the first place.
Every other preferential voting system treats a ballot ranking X 1st,
and Y 2nd, as a preference for X or Y over all other candidates.
That is how voters expect these systems to work.
Our voting system treats a ballot mentioning only X as expressing no
preference whatsoever.
This particular concern seems to be a simple user interface issue. Our system
should not allow a ballot mentioning a single option.
Evidently, the voting interface could use a lot of work.
I do not see a good reason to change the system in this concern.
Ian.
--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com
_______________________________________________
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
