[EM] The Hippopotamus Logic

[Mike Ossipoff]

Don said:

"Is Condorcet the best because Condorcert look more like Condorcet
than anything else [does]? Is Condorcet used as the standard when
comparing all the single-winner methods, including Condorcet?"

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. 

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.

I've pointed out that one explanation for why Condorcet gets rid
of the LO2E problem is because, by counting votes-against, it's
explicitly & specifically counting what the LO2E voter wants counted.
The LO2E voter wants, more than anything else, to cast a vote
_against_ someone, and s/he is willing to forfeit hir chance
to vote for someone, in order to reliably cast a vote _against_
someone.

I've also posted some LO2E criteria, reasonable benchmarks for
measuring whether or not a method gets rid of the LO2E problem
to the degree that is possible.

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 respects that
principle, meaning that it will never unnecessarily violate it.

IRO doesn't repect that principle; IRO will often unnecessarily
violate it.

A requirement to never unnecessarily violte that basic democratic
principle leads to a requirement to meet the Generalized Majority
Criterion (GMC), which I've defined previously, more than once.

That basic democratic principle & GMC are both about majority
rule. 

But IRO also unnecessarily violates another basic democratic
principle that lots of other methods don't unnecessarily violate:

If the number of voters indicating that they'd rather have A than
B is greater than the number indicating that they'd rather have
B than A, then, if we choose A or B, it should be A.

In addition to Condorcet's method, Regular Champion, and all 
versions of Copeland's method, and Young's method, and Dodgson's
method, and Smith//Random, among others, all will never unnecessarily
violate the basic democratic principle in the paragraph before
this one. But IRO will.

A reuirement to not unnecessarily violate that principle leads
to a requirement to meet the Condorcet Criterion. Mr. Condorcet,
in the 18th century, felt that that was important, and surely
that led to his proposal of his method. 

Don, you've got your carriage in front of your horse. These standards
& principles are the starting point, the initial goal. It's
common knowledge that getting rid of the LO2E problem & protecting
majority rule are the initial goals of sw reform. Condorcet's method
was chosen because it's the methods that meets these standards &
respects those principles.

Then Don says:

"If there's a standard to compare with, the there must be some
rule that Instant Runoff violates when it is declared by someone
that Instant Runoff fails--what is the rule?"

I've answered that questino in this letter. 

Don asks:

"...then why don't we drop both Instant Runoff & Condorcet's method
& use this stndard?"

The standards that we've been defining don't always point to a specific
particular alternative that should be the winner. So it wouldn't
be enough to say use just a standard, or even a criterion, as
the choice rule, by itself. Especially a standard, since standards
are often even less specific than criteria.

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

***

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".

But if you're into animal folklore, I suggest you check out some
of the folktales about ostriches.

You seem unaware of everything that's been said on this list
about standards. 

You seem inclined to run-off at the mouth without listening.

***

Mike


 



--