Yup. The 'unwanted candidate' is the common argument I've heard too, but it is almost impossible to have happen unless a significant chunk of the population tries to vote strategically and 'outsmart' the voting system. (Is it *possible* that a surprise candidate wins? Yes. But, assuming that everyone voted their conscience, that candidate would actually *be* the best representative choice of the compromise of everyone's selections. It might shock some people for a couple of go-rounds, but I think it's better overall.)
Actually, you've almost got the points thing I think. :) I'll actually give it a formalism whirl:
Assume N candidates.
First pick gets N pts. Second pick gets N-1 pts. Third pick gets N-2 pts. ... Nth pick gets 1 pt.
The number of points going to a particular spot in your ranking is absolute. If you only pick one person, they get N pts. If you pick two, the first choice still gets N, the second choice gets N-1. If you pick three, the first choice *still* gets N, the second choice *still* gets N-1, and numero tres gets N-2.
Now at first glance it appears that the more people you vote for, the more 'votes' you get. Nuh-uh. Because all the people you don't select get 0, the most powerful vote of all - a solid 'NO'.
This is where the math happens behind the scenes - what the system essentially does is create pair-wise races, which is statistically great (but a pain in the butt to maintain), and presents it to the voter as a *simple choice*. Best of both worlds.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Actually, it's a suggestion I've heard before ...
Date: 2004-10-18 09:54 pm (UTC)Actually, you've almost got the points thing I think. :) I'll actually give it a formalism whirl:
Assume N candidates.
First pick gets N pts.
Second pick gets N-1 pts.
Third pick gets N-2 pts.
...
Nth pick gets 1 pt.
The number of points going to a particular spot in your ranking is absolute. If you only pick one person, they get N pts. If you pick two, the first choice still gets N, the second choice gets N-1. If you pick three, the first choice *still* gets N, the second choice *still* gets N-1, and numero tres gets N-2.
Now at first glance it appears that the more people you vote for, the more 'votes' you get. Nuh-uh. Because all the people you don't select get 0, the most powerful vote of all - a solid 'NO'.
This is where the math happens behind the scenes - what the system essentially does is create pair-wise races, which is statistically great (but a pain in the butt to maintain), and presents it to the voter as a *simple choice*. Best of both worlds.