4 ms·
IMHO, Schulze is too complicated for the average voter. People need to understand the voting system. I don't deny that it's theoretically better.
by nas 17y ago
IMHO, Schulze is too complicated for the average voter. People need to understand the voting system. I don't deny that it's theoretically better.
- lmkg 17y agoI heartily disagree that people need to understand the voting system. Ideally, people should just be thinking about ranking the candidates. If the way that the votes are counted will affect the way they vote, that means that strategic voting is a prominent part of the system. Granted, strategic voting is theoretically unavoidable without introducing other degeneracies. But on a quantitative scale, its effect and its frequency are smaller under some voting systems than others.
- bradbeattie 17y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrows_impossibility_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrows_impossibility_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbard–Satterthwaite_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbard–Satterthwaite_theorem
- bradbeattie 17y agoPeople generally don't understand how their household appliances work. They only care about understanding the interface (e.g. open fridge door, put stuff in, stuff stays cool).