posted by [identity profile] hoiho.livejournal.com at 11:39pm on 09/05/2005
Becasue, at the monent, you have no other choice. However, in last 2 generals (before this one) I voted for one Tam Dalyell, Bart. I did not vote for him becasue he was labour, but becasue he was Tam, and I trusted him. I'd like to be able to do that more often.
 
posted by [identity profile] fluffymormegil.livejournal.com at 11:46pm on 09/05/2005
I don't see that multimember constituencies do that much better, and I don't regard the Condorcet problem as a terribly attractive thing either.
 
posted by [identity profile] hoiho.livejournal.com at 11:55pm on 09/05/2005
Why not? Say we have 6 seats going. I can choose 3 because I trust the the candidates; then I can allocate my other votes on a party basis -- if I so choose. But I'm not compeled, as I am at the moment, to chose one of N. The value of rejection in an electoral system should not be underestimated.
emperor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] emperor at 08:17am on 10/05/2005
Have a RON list? :-)
 
posted by [identity profile] meirion.livejournal.com at 03:44am on 10/05/2005
i am coming to see condorcet cycles not as a bug, but as a feature.

-m-
 
posted by [identity profile] yrieithydd.livejournal.com at 06:57am on 10/05/2005
What are condorcet cycles?
 
posted by [identity profile] senji.livejournal.com at 08:40am on 10/05/2005
There is no Condorcet winner if A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A. This is called a voting cycle. (It is also called a voting paradox because the collective ranking can be circular even if each voter has non-circular preferences.)

October

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
      1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31