MATH: Re: CHAT (POLITICS!!!): Putting the duh in Florida

> Hmm.  What *is* the literacy rate in the U.S., anyway?  <looking around>
CIA Fact Book says:

Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 97%
male: 97%
female: 97% (1979 est.)

> > No, that's not how the preferential system works.
> [snip]
> 'K.  I'll see if I can find anything on the mathematics of the
> preferential system that might make it difficult to implement or
> impractical in some situations.  Truth to tell, I don't know why any
> nation picks any particular voting system.
>
> > The preferential system makes ties impossible, if there are more than
> > two candidates. Better, it distinguishes between much prefered,
> > moderately prefered and not at all prefered politicians, thus capturing
> > a lot more information about voter thinking.
>
> Would it still allow cycles?  <headache>  (Sorry, this is one of those
> sub-areas in math that I am terrible at, despite being a math major.)
For each voter? Not as I would understand the description, no.

> Also, while some voters would consider these levels of preference a
> *good* thing (I like the idea, but I want to look at the mathematical
> analysis before I say anything else, and I bet there's one out there),
> the entrenched Democratic and Republican parties might not like it if
> it's apt to allow 3rd-party candidates to enter the system more easily.
> <cynical look>
Probable US result:

    Gore    ~40% 1st
    Bush    ~40% 1st
    Nader   ~5%  1st
    Other assorted candidates
   a sum of ~15% 1st

(possibly? As a swede, I don't __REALLY__ know...)

Now, one by one, the assorted candidates are thrown out, giving Gore, Bush
(and possibly Nader) slow rises. Sometime, all but the top three will be
left (or a winner designated.)

Thus, we would have:

    Gore    50%-d_1
    Bush    50%-d_2
    Nader   d_1+d_2    (or someone else... I've heard about Nader... :-)

Here, Nader will be removed (supposing the figures above were even remotely
correct, in which case Nader won't be able to gain more than maximum 20%
total, still losing _big_time_ against the giants) and his votes will be
spread out among Gore and Bush, among whom he would win the election that
has the highest amount of 2nd choice among Naders voters and 3rd or 4th etc.
among the assorted candidates.

It doesn't seem likely that a candidate could possibly win only on 2nd and
3rd hand votes.

> > I admit that it would be relatively expensive to go through all the
> > steps for a country as populated as America (which is why I added "or
> > equally sophisticated alternative") but in these sophisticated modern
> > times it could be done. Australia uses it for local representatives
> > and (in the Senate) for state representatives.
>
> What are possible sophisticated alternatives?
>
> YHL, wishing that either her comparative government had been more
> detailed, or that she'd been paying more attention
// Mikael Johansson