@jack-waugh said in The Metadiscussion:
Why should US (UK, Canada and so on) activists work for PR if all they can get is the same level of slavery that the US ruling class imposes on the Germans today?
Damn, I just logged back in to see what I caused, and I see this 
I have to agree with Andy, statements like this from the person hosting this forum are probably not the best.
This still very much seems like IRV and not Condorcet compliant though. Just imagine you have two voters and three candidates with preferences a>b>c and c>b>a. Wouldn't this method delete b in the first step which was the condorcet winner?
Now I am fully confused. Would you be able to give a complete (and self-contained) description of the rule? (Pseudocode would also work)
@jack-waugh said in Recursive IRV:
@rob means he wants to apply the Hare method recursively. A given incarnation of the method might put a fixed limit on the depth of recursion. The bottom will just use Hare. If not at the bottom, conduct an IRV election among the remaining candidates to decide which one to eliminate from the list for the subsequent round of tallying.
I am still not sure if I fully understand. "If not at the bottom, conduct an IRV election among the remaining candidates to decide which one to eliminate from the list for the subsequent round of tallying." This doesnt really make sense to me. Wouldnt this just eliminate a candidate with lowest plurality score?
You are def not the first one to ask this: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s003550100128.pdf Here they give a few examples that participation does not imply monotonicity.
@rob said in Recursive IRV:
Recursive IRV is a way of continuing this process of refinement by doing an inner process of elimination, in order to determine which candidate to eliminate in the outer process of elimination. So instead of using plurality to determine the "bad candidates" to eliminate, it uses plurality to determine the "good candidates" to eliminate from the determination of which are "bad candidates," and therefore to be eliminated.
To the degree that IRV improves upon plurality, this method can improve upon IRV.
I apologize, but I do not think I really understand what your method does. Especially this "it uses plurality to determine the "good candidates" to eliminate from the determination of which are "bad candidates," and therefore to be eliminated" part seems quite vague. Is there an easy fully description of the method?
Regarding the ballot format, you could try to follow the format prescribed by https://www.preflib.org/format (so an academic website collecting elections). I think too many formats flying around is quite bad.
Regarding the preferences generation I am not too sure. I think that it is quite hard in general go generate meaningful preferences. At least for uniform random though, I would say that it probably is not very meaningful.
@jack-waugh said in The Metadiscussion:
Why should US (UK, Canada and so on) activists work for PR if all they can get is the same level of slavery that the US ruling class imposes on the Germans today?
Damn, I just logged back in to see what I caused, and I see this I have to agree with Andy, statements like this from the person hosting this forum are probably not the best.
@jack-waugh oh lol you are one of those guys. If this the level of discourse in a voting theory forum, then I hope the rest is not like you
@jack-waugh said in Deutschland:
Are you here because you favor an improvement in choice of voting system that prevails in the country where you live? If so, what do you think is inadequate about the current choice? Are the people in control of the government in your country?
You say that the case of Germany sounds like a conspiracy to you. What do you suppose the conspirators are trading among themselves?
Hi Jack, I am indeed from Germany. And no I am not here because I want to improve the German voting system. There are some minor things which I believe could be changed. All in all, it seems like a very good and representative system though.
Where do you even get the idea from that Germans are not in control of their government, at least less than in other representative democracies?
And yes this, "Germans need to take back the control of the government" sounds eerily similar to talking points of right wing politicians.
@jack-waugh I am very confused by this. Why are Germans not in charge of their government? This sounds like some sort of right wing conspiracy