[EM] IRVie majority

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Maybe it should be clarified again that the IRVies have their
own unique definition of what it means for a candidate to have
a majority:

IRVies claim that after IRV eliminates all but 2 candidates, and
a majority of all the voters prefer one of those to the other
(as they surely will if no one equal-rates any candidates),
then that means that that more preferred of those 2 candidates
"has a majority" and is a "majority winner".

Yes, I know that's asinine, but that's how the IRVies, all over
the country are using "majority".

That isn't "having a majority" or being a "majority winner" in
any accepted sense of those terms. "Having a majority" or
"being a majority winner" means being the favorite of a majority.

Don has previously said that IRV is good because it "produces"
a majority. Manufactures one. Counterfeits one.

It was also pointed out that there's something funny about the
IRVie claim that IRV is good because it elects someone who has
a majority of the votes. The meaning of having that majority of
the votes of course depends on how they've been gotten. They've
been gotten by IRV's rules for passing votes around. The
meaning of having that majority of the votes depends on the
legitimacy of IRV's rules that gave him those votes. And how
do we know that IRV's rules are good? Why because IRV elects
someone who has a majority of the votes :-)

A majority can get any result that it agrees upon. If what it
agrees upon is that a certain candidate's election would be less
desirable than that of certain other candidates, then they can
, with most methods, only get their way on that with strategy
sometimes.

Since a majority can always get its way, then, but sometimes only
by strategy, it makes sense to talk about majority rule in terms
of what they have to do in order to get their way. So here's a
simple & modest criterion about that:

Weak Defensive Strategy Criterion (WDSC):

If a majority of all the voters prefer A to B, then they should
be able to ensure that B won't win without any member of that
majority voting a less-liked candidate over a more-liked one.

[end of definition]

This is a minimal majority rule criterion. IRV fails, along with
Plurality. Approval & Condorcet pass.

Mike Ossipoff





_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com