[EM] The Hippopotamus Logic

[donald at mich.com]

Steve wrote on Mon, 28 Oct 1996
>
>So why not keep the proposal clean and simple?  I suggest we not
>complicate the proposal by treating these moot cases specially.
Donald: OK - I have no problem with that.

Steve: >
>Changing the ratio would require amending the U.S. Constitution, so
>that's out of reach of the proposal.  But the imbalance will become
>moot once all the states are in the RS: then the electoral college
>will always be unanimous!  Even before all the states join the RS,
>the imbalance will shrink in importance as the RS grows.
Donald: By allowing the imbalance to become moot we are changing the ratio.

Steve: >
>I'm suggesting that the best way to determine the runner-up is
>to eliminate the 1st place finisher from the voters' rankings and
>retally.  It's like saying to the people "well, your first choice
>Dole just died of a heart attack, so we'll let you all vote anew."
>The people would then vote to elect Clinton.
Donald: I buy this now - I should have been quicker - this is similar to
something I wrote years ago about filling a vacancy on a city council -
copy below:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     If a vacancy is to be filled by going back to data of last election we
go to the original data and we first drop the now vacant candidate and
reassign his votes.  Then we run the reassigning routine until we produce
ten final candidates.  One will be new and the other nine should be the
same current nine sitting council members.  I have not proved this yet but
I think it should be so.  These nine still have the same winning votes.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Steve: > I think you're overspecifying, and this makes the proposal more
complex for the reader.  If I were you I'd separate those sections and put
them
>in an appendix.
Donald: I'll have to think about this - I have this desire to put all the
parts into something so that it will work.

Steve: >
>By the way, have you reconsidered your preference for IR?  I can
>understand the argument that the mechanics of Condorcet might be
>significantly harder to explain to the public when campaigning for
>it by a poorly-funded initiative, but I recall your reasons were
>different.  Something about cultists?  :-)
Donald: I am wary of any possible Hippopotamus Logic. The story goes that
the hippopotamus was named the hippopotamus because it looks more like a
hippopotamus than anything else. Is Condorcet the best because Condorcet
looks more like Condorcet than anything else? Is Condorcet used as the
standard when comparing all the single-winner methods including Condorcet?
If not - do you have a separate standard? If so - why don't we drop both
Instant Runoff and Condorcet and use this standard to give us the results
of an election?

When we compare apples and oranges we cannot use the apple nor the orange
as a standard to judge each. We cannot say that the apple failed because it
does not look like the orange. We cannot say that Instant Runoff failed
because it gives a different result than Condorcet.

If there is no Standard to compare with, then there must some rule that
Instant Runoff violated when it is declared by someone that Instant Runoff
fails - what is the rule?

I am a distance away from changing my preference.

Donald