But I think most people were talking about the complexity for a person to UNDERSTAND how the algorithm works, not the complexity to actually do the calculation. I agree that computationally it is less complex, but that is not really an issue, since it's not like anyone would be doing this by hand anyway. The real hurdle to public acceptance that I think most of us were talking about was the complexity of the actual scheme.
Jeremy
But I think most people were talking about the complexity for a
person to
UNDERSTAND how the algorithm works, not the complexity to actually
do the
calculation. I agree that computationally it is less complex, but
that is
not really an issue, since it's not like anyone would be doing this by
hand anyway. The real hurdle to public acceptance that I think most
of us
were talking about was the complexity of the actual scheme.
You just look at the average scores of a bunch of candidates and elect
the one whose average is the greatest. I don't know much simpler you
want to make this process.
Of course, if you allow abstentions, then you have to have a handy
little quorum rule, where a candidate must get at least half as much
_total score_ as the one who got the most - regardless of how high his
average is - to be valid. This is still incredibly simple, and not
really a very big concern for the voter, since he'll understand it
when his "no name" candidate (who can't even garner half as much total
score as the one who got the most) doesn't win.
And this is _still_ super simple, especially compared to schemes like
IRV. Get a load of *this*
http://RangeVoting.org/Complexity.html
I'm serious - read it.
CLAY