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.
Ah, so when you said "preferred to the alternatives", your idea of which alternatives to consider was derived from some first-principles idea other than "the set of candidates eliminated during the IRV process"? That would make more sense, but in that case, was definitely unclear in your original statement of "any voting system that doesn't do this isn't fit for purpose".
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!
My idea is very basically - that nobody should be considered voted in, in a single seat, unless they are preferred by at least 50% of voters over the other options. I gave an example of how you might do that, but I am totally open to alternative methods of finding out what people prefer.
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 ?)