[EM] The Hippopotamus Logic

[donald at mich.com]

Mike wrote on Thu, 31 Oct 1996
>Don, where were you when we were discussing standards?? We talked
>about them for a long time. We stated a number of standards &
>criteria. Standards that are important to electoral reformers,
>because they're about things that are important to voters.
>Criteria that serve as benchmarks to measure compliance with those
>standards.
Donald: That must have been before my time on this list - I've only been on
this  list for less than a year.

Mike:>
>These standards include majority rule, and getting rid of the
>lesser-of-2-evils (LO2E) problem. It's been amply demonstrated,
>more than once, that Condorcet meets these standards & criteria,
>and that IRO fails them in a big way.
Thank you - I often would wonder what (LO2E) meant - as I waded through the
pages of this list.

Mike:>
>Now I'll re-state a basic democratic principle that I"ve previously
>pointed out:
>
>If a full majority of all the voters indicate that they'd rather have
>A than B, then if we choose A or B, it should be A.
>
>Condorcet's method is the only proposed method [that] respects that
>principle, meaning that it will never unnecessarily violate it.
>
>IRO doesn't repect that principle; IRO will often unnecessarily
>violate it.
Donald: Would you show me an example of IRO violating the rule of majority?


Mike: >
>So (as we discussed a long time ago, Don) we look for a method
>that meets the standards that are important to us.
Donald: So do I.

Mike:>
>I thought the hippopotamus was so named because someone likened
>it to a horse that lives in the river, and therefore called it
>a "river horse".
Donald: You are being real - I was not. I was referring to the joke about
Adam and Eve going around naming all the animals.

Mike: >
>You seem unaware of everything that's been said on this list
>about standards.
Donald: That is because I do not understand everything that has been said
on this list. I only wade in the shallow water - the visibility is better
for me to search for Gems of Wisdom among the gravel - more like roses
among the thorns.

Mike: >You seem inclined to run-off at the mouth without listening.
Donald: Would that be Instant Run-off?


Truth is - I am not one hundred percent in love with Instant Run-off. I can
construct examples which give results that I do not like. Therefore I would
consider some additions or some other methods. Maybe - just maybe there is
something of value in Condorcet. Otherwise I would never bother with this
Condorcet dispute - be gone dispute.

Donald