| |||||||||||||
Election Results for Fedora Board, FAmSCo, and FESCo seatsElection Results for Fedora Board, FAmSCo, and FESCo seatsPosted Jun 9, 2012 17:50 UTC (Sat) by theophrastus (guest, #80847)In reply to: Election Results for Fedora Board, FAmSCo, and FESCo seats by dmitrij.ledkov Parent article: Election Results for Fedora Board, FAmSCo, and FESCo seats
Even simpler than that (or ranked voting) is "approval voting" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting) wherein the voter can vote for as many of the candidates as they wish (voting for everyone just nullifies your vote's effect into the entropy). The winner is the one that gets the most votes. It eliminates the "ralph nader" effect. And it is about as simple as it gets.
Yet there is no perfect voting system. i believe there's mathematical proof of that.
(Log in to post comments)
Election Results for Fedora Board, FAmSCo, and FESCo seats Posted Jun 9, 2012 19:08 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
I think Condorcet voting (that Debian uses) has been proven to come closest to the perfect voting system.
Election Results for Fedora Board, FAmSCo, and FESCo seats Posted Jun 10, 2012 4:11 UTC (Sun) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
Specifically what was proved was that the set of attributes which many people would agree are desirable from a preference-based voting system for a simple election (pick one candidate from a list) cannot all be achieved simultaneously for a single system.
This is called Arrow's impossibility theorem.
You can beat this if you're willing to change the possible criteria. For example, the "one person one vote" criterion might actually be unfair. We can recognise a decision by two wolves and one sheep on what to have for dinner is not made fair by giving each "person" a vote.
|
|||||||||||||