MY AMERICAN SCIENTIST
LOG IN! REGISTER!
SEARCH
 
RSS
Logo
HOME > ON THE BOOKSHELF > COMMENTS

Electoral Games People Play


Comments


Steven Hill, a FairVote activist and proponent of Instant Runoff Voting, is mistaken in his criticism of score voting (aka range voting), and its simplified form, approval voting. He says:

"[Score vo...

posted by Clay Shentrup
October 12, 2008 @ 6:33 AM


Steven Hill, a FairVote activist and proponent of Instant Runoff Voting, is mistaken in his criticism of score voting (aka range voting), and its simplified form, approval voting. He says:

"[Score vo...

posted by Clay Shentrup
October 12, 2008 @ 6:34 AM


Great review by Steven Hill!

I completely agree that we should talk more about the underlying values that we want our democracy to support and foster, and should seek to enact electoral methods that ...

posted by Rob Dickinson
October 15, 2008 @ 2:47 AM


Every voting method has failings. Indeed some fairness criteria used by election method experts are mutually exclusive, so it is impossible for any system to be "perfect." But of the single-winner alt...
posted by Terrill Bouricius
October 15, 2008 @ 10:17 AM


Poundstone is an entertaining science writer (previous books include a famous one on Carl Sagan), and this book is a good read. But he is a science writer, not a mathematician, economist or political ...
posted by Bob Richard
October 15, 2008 @ 12:18 PM


Steven Hill got it right in pointing out that range voting, approval voting and Borda count, though all better than plain old plurality voting, have a
tendency to degenerate into plurality voting in ...

posted by Dave Kadlecek
October 15, 2008 @ 1:37 PM


I think Steven Hills review is more than fair to all voting systems.

He misses a few arguments against Range Voting that should be mentioned. First, Range Voting advocates always compare results ...

posted by Charles O'Neil
October 15, 2008 @ 6:28 PM


I'm still scratching my head over Mr Shentrup's comment. With a voting system that satisfies later-no-harm (as does IRV), a voter has no strategic motivation to bullet-vote. I fail to see the contradi...
posted by Jonathan Lundell
October 15, 2008 @ 7:34 PM


Dave Kadlecek,

No I did not "get it wrong" in citing the 2000 election election, in which 90% of voters who supported Nader betrayed him. This and numerous other examples throughout history amply d...

posted by Clay Shentrup
October 16, 2008 @ 4:19 AM


Jonathon wrote:

"I'm still scratching my head over Mr Shentrup's comment. With a voting system that satisfies later-no-harm (as does IRV), a voter has no strategic motivation to bullet-vote."

1) ALL...

posted by Clay Shentrup
October 16, 2008 @ 4:24 AM


Total Records : 17


 
Subscribe to American Scientist