[EM] Reply to Steve's post of Oct 25 1996

[donald at mich.com]

Steve wrote on 25 Oct 1996

Steve: >
>I disagree somewhat with this part of the algorithm, in the case
>where exactly one candidate can reach an electoral college majority.
>The reformed states have only two possibilities here: they can elect
>that candidate or they can throw the election to the House of
>Representatives.  I think there are obvious situations where they'd
>rather elect that one even if s/he isn't the leader in the reformed
>states--s/he might have been a close second, etc.  And I think there
>are obvious situations where they'd rather let the House decide, such
>as when the House is likely to pick a candidate higher in the
>reformed states' order than that one.

Donald: You have changed my thinking in the case of only one candidate
within reach of a win. I now say we should force the Reformed States to
elect this one candidate. I had felt kind of dishonest about giving the
people only one candidate to vote for - but the job of electing the
President belongs to the people and they should not be allow to give this
power away to some gorup like a political party or the House. As the number
of Reformed States increases the fear of only one winable candidate will be
reduced.

We still have two cases to consider: One - There is the case of a candidate
in the UNreformed States receiving enough electoral votes to be
President-elect.
Two - there is the case of no candidate within reach of a win. For both of
these cases I say we let the Reformed States vote for whoever they want to
vote for using some single winner method.

Steve: >
>Perhaps there's a way the method can guess which one would be
>picked by the House,

Donald: We can guess which one would be picked by the House - the House
members will vote for their party.

Steve: >Why do you think it's so much better to eliminate the national
can't_wins before tallying the order in the reformed states?

Donald: I feel that it is a better sell - it avoids the possibility of the
Reformed States coming up with a winner that is not one of the candidates
within reach of winning it all.


Steve: >
>Finishing last in the reformed states means that, to the voters in
>the reformed states, s/he is the most despised candidate.  I think
>this means they've decided s/he should lose, and want him/her to get
>zero delegates even if s/he is the only one who can win nationally.

Donald: I understand now what you are saying here - I have no problem with it.

Steve: >
>Again your terminology ("lowest amount of popular votes") is more
>appropriate for IR than for a pairwise method.

Donald: I have decided to rewrite my plan. I am going to fit it just for
Instant Runoff because my presentation is getting hung up on the
single-winner dispute. I want to dwell on other points at this time - I
have a one track mind - one track at a time.
One - the issue of only one candidate within reach of a win(which has
already been decided with your help).
Two - the two other cases of less than two candidates within reach of a win.
Three - the question of electoral ratio - do we preserve the ratio of each
state? If not - why not - and can we sell it to the states? If we do
preserve the ratios I am interested on how you will do that with the single
method you will be using.


>
>>>Steve: There's no point in awarding delegates to the most despised
>>>candidate just because s/he's the only one who can win a majority
>>>of the electoral college.  That would be worse than letting the
>>>House of Representatives pick a winner.
>>
>>Donald: This is not only good - it is GREAT!  I want it carved in
>>stone (my words).
>
>I'm not clear on where you stand on this, since above you said you
>see no value in it.

Donald: I had thought that you were referring to the only one candidate
within reach of a win - but my remark is moot now because I understand now
what you are saying here and I have no problem with it.

Steve: >
>>>For example, given the 3-candidate race with the familiar ballots:
>>>   46: Dole>Clinton>Nader
>>>   20: Clinton
>>>   34: Nader>Clinton>Dole

>>>If the method is Instant Runoff then the collective order is:
>>>   1.Dole 2.Clinton 3.Nader

>  Follow the algorithm I provided
>above:  To find the 2nd place finisher, drop the 1st place finisher
>Dole from the ballots and retally:
>   46: Clinton>Nader
>   20: Clinton
>   34: Nader>Clinton
>Clinton wins this, so Clinton is 2nd and Nader is 3rd.
>The IR collective order is:  Dole, Clinton, Nader
>

Donald: "VERY Interesting" - I would not have done it like that.

First I would have removed Clinton from the ballot because he is the lowest
on the first tally - this gives us: 46 Dole-Nader 34 Nader-Dole
Nader is now lowest so I would remove him - giving us 80 Dole

Do I misunderstand how Instand Runoff works or are you using pairwise
methods and logic on Instant Runoff? I must know the answer - because if
your way is the accepted way that Instant Runoff works then I must change
tacks sailor - coming about - put your head down - and so forth.


Steve: >
>Three doesn't apply to pairwise methods, which don't "assign" votes
>to one candidate at a time.  To use a more universal wording, how
>about saying that the dropped candidates are dropped from the
>ballots?  For example, dropping Y from the ballot X>Y>Z produces
>the ballot X>Z no matter what sw method is used.

Donald: I have no problem with this.

Steve: >
>Here's a possible wording for a revised Two (eliminating Four):
>
>  Two: After the election we check the electoral vote counts of all
>  the candidates in the UNreformed states.  Any candidates which
>  can't possibly reach a majority of the electoral college, even if
>  they also win all the electoral votes of all the reformed states,
>  are dropped from the reformed states' ballots.

Donald: Seems OK to me on first inspection.

Steve: >
>I also don't like the "vote-sum" terminology in your later message.

Donald: If you have a better term I am receptive. With all the different
possible combinations we are going to have sums of votes attached to most
of these combinations. I call them Vote-Sums for want of a better term.

Donald