Reminder that any voting system where you can win a single seat without 50% of people thinking you're better than the alternatives is not fit for purpose.
Page Summary
Active Entries
- 1: Interesting Links for 19-12-2025
- 2: Interesting Links for 18-12-2025
- 3: Interesting Links for 16-12-2025
- 4: Interesting Links for 17-12-2025
- 5: Life with two children: Renting realms
- 6: Interesting Links for 15-12-2025
- 7: Life with two parents: Just about
- 8: Interesting Links for 12-12-2025
- 9: Interesting Links for 06-12-2025
- 10: Timeline of a new phase in my life.
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2025-05-02 10:52 pm (UTC)And I don't think it's fair to say "the ones that my own algorithm didn't win". We're talking about a single seat here. If we were talking about multi-member constituencies then which algorithm you use, how you divide up the seats between multiple parties, etc. makes a big difference. But when it comes to a single winner situation I don't think I've seen many alternatives seriously discussed which would leave the party that 7% of the voters had as their first choice in active competition. Are you thinking of an algorithm which wouldn't do that?
(I'm ignoring things like Approval Voting, because it doesn't have very wide support, and seems to leave itself open to strategic voting in a way that looks complex and unpleasant if it becomes common.)
no subject
Date: 2025-05-02 11:12 pm (UTC)Also, I think there are several plausible ways to define the set of not-hopeless candidates. The one that sprang to my mind was the Smith set. But apparently IRV can elect a candidate outside that set, by sometimes eliminating the Condorcet winner if there is one!
no subject
Date: 2025-05-03 02:00 pm (UTC)(Also, did you see people being nice about you over here: https://andrewducker.dreamwidth.org/4560569.html?thread=32304313#cmt32304313 ?)