[EM] Bart, Bart, You Rang?

[Instant Runoff Voting supporter]

Donald: Bart is at the door. (Voltaire: Must we answer?) Yes, we must, for
he is carrying chinks in his armor thru which we can advance Instant Runoff
Voting(IRV).
      [enter Bart]
Bart: But Donald, IRV _is_ a Bottom Method.

Donald: Please Bart, I coined the term Bottom Method, you will need to get
your own term. A few you might consider are: Low vs High, Worst vs Best,
etc, you get the picture.
    Besides, I defined a Bottom Method to be a method that would subsidize
the BOTTOM candidate from the count of the first choices. IRV would never
subsidize the bottom candidate. IRV eliminates the bottom candidate (that's
quite a difference).

Bart:  By attempting to mandate a majority when none exists, you end up
counting detractors as supporters.

Donald: No, that is not true. What IRV does is allow the voters of the
bottom candidate a chance to change their vote, if they wish to do so.

Bart: Then your majority-by-fiat will elect someone despised by a majority.

Donald: No, this is not true. The voters that do change their vote would
not select a candidate that they despised. (Me Thinks he protests too much)

Bart:  Example:    49%  A(10)   B(9)   C(0)
                   25%  B(10)   C(1)   A(0)
                   26%  C(10)   B(9)   A(0)

On a scale of 0..10, candidate B is rated by every voter as being very
near that voter's favorite.  In other words, B is a Top Candidate (and is
almost certainly the Approval winner).

Donald: If B is a top candidate then why did he not receive more votes. The
name of the game is: "You Gotta get the Votes", and they better be the
first choice votes, because the first choices are the most important
choices. At least get enough so you are not the bottom candidate.
     You have no right to give the A votes to candidate B while candidate A
still holds them. You are cloning votes. The lower choices have no value as
long as the first choice is still a contender. You are too quick at taking
votes away from one candidate and giving them to another. Candidate A is
the favorite in your example.
     For your example to be realistic, you would need to show that the A
voters did not make any lower choices, they don't need to, it is not to
their advantage to do so under any method. You Bottom Method Supporters
(BMS) are always thinking that the large factions are waiting to give up
their most preferred candidate in order to elect a second choice. This is
not true, you are living in a dream world. Large factions have their own
candidates they are trying to elect.
     Making no lower choices is a valid expectation of the largest
factions. And that fact will doom the Bottom Methods. You are advocating
methods that will fade away in the real world.
     Besides, B will not be any kind of a winner if your example were more
realistic. Allow me to change your example to make it more believable.
     49 A,  2 BA,  21 BC,  2 B,  2 CA,  22 CB,  2 C
     Now, candidate B is not the Approval winner.  A is the Approval
winner.  A is the Condorcet winner.  A is the Instant Runoff winner. A is
the winner all around.

Bart: Plurality winner A is another top candidate, with nearly a majority
of first-choice votes.

Donald: Yes, and don't you forget that.

Bart: With IRV, a Bottom Method, candidate C wins with a manufactured
majority, ...

Donald: I already told you that IRV is not a Bottom Method.

Bart: ...even though B is despised by 74% of the voters (a Bottom Candidate
if there ever was one).

Donald: Candidate B is not despised by 74% of the voters, what happened to
your claim that B was the voter's favorite, the Top Candidate??  Now B is
despised and a bottom candidate. (Me Thinks he means candidate C)  I know,
me thinks Bart should eye ball his posts before he sends them out.

Bart:  Surely you must agree that a majority consisting of 26% supporters
and 74% detractors is a Ghost Majority, if that term has any meaning at
all.

Donald: I would agree that it is very unrealistic for every B voter to
chose candidate C as their second choice, more so when we consider that
they only rated candidate C a one on a scale of zero to ten, but then your
entire example is unrealistic. (most examples are unrealistic that are
provided by the BMS types)

Bart: And you are right, with a Bottom Method such as IRV, ...

Donald: Yes, I know I am right.  There he goes again, calling IRV a Bottom
Method, what's with him. (he is showering us with sound bites until
everyone believes, like TV political ads) I would say he is acting like
Herr Gobbels - if one repeats a lie enough times the people will believe
it. (that works too)

Bart: ...the 49% who supported A are not allowed to change their votes, and
must stay with the loser.

Regards, Bart

Donald: Regards to you too, but of more importance, do you really believe
that the 49%A voters wanted to change their vote??  If so, you are being
unrealistic big time. Your complaining that the A voters cannot change
their vote is one chink in your armor. My suggested solution is to repeat
the election so that every voter can change their vote, if they wish to do
so of course.
    Consider this turn of events. We don't use any method after the count
of the first choices, 49A 25B 26C, instead, we tell the voters that because
there is no majority winner, the election will be repeated with the same
candidates ABC - no candidate is to be eliminated, and that each voter is
free to cast the same vote or to change their vote. Will this make you
happy??   It makes me happy, for I approve.
    No method could be more fair than for us to do this - the voters will
decide if they want to change their ballots, and they are free to do so, no
voter "must stay with the loser", as you say.
    Now, smarty guy, how will the voters vote this time??
    Well, we can be sure that the 49%A voters are not going to change their
votes. Why should they? They have the largest faction by far, best to keep
that vote count. All they need to do is pick up one percent plus one vote
and they win. That is how close they are to winning. They may like B enough
to rate him a nine, but they like their candidate A best of all. No way are
they thinking about changing their votes. Having your candidate win is the
game, not trying to see if you can get some other candidate to win.
Candidate B will have to win on his own, without any help from the A
voters. That's the way the game is played.

     Now I would like to talk about another chink in your armor, Bart.

     I wish to thank you for rating the candidates, because when you rated
them you opened up another chink that points to what I have long been
saying, that is, there is a big flaw in the lower choices. They are of
lessor value.
     If the voter were to rate their own choices, for sure all the lower
choices would be below a ten, the rating that the most preferred candidates
receive, the rating of a full vote. The lower choices are not up to the
standard of the first choices. The average rating of the lower choices(200)
in your example is only a 3.5/10, this part of your example is realistic.
The lower choices are not entitled to a full vote, not now, now ever.
     In other words, most of the lower choices are garbage and the rule
"garbage in - garbage out" will prevail. Methods that use a full set or
more of the lower choices will have garbage for results. (a full set is a
number of choices equal to the number of voters)
     The solution is to use the lower choices as little as possible. IRV
uses lower choices the least, therefore IRV has another reason to claim to
be the best method, the top method.

     In closing, I would like to thank you again for rating the candidates.
This policy can be used to construct reasons as to why IRV is the best.
This EM list is a good source of ideas to support IRV. (BMS types are their
own worst enemy)     [exit Bart]

Regards, Donald Davison - Host of New Democracy,  www.mich.com/~donald
    To subscribe: Send blank email to:  New Democracy <donald at mich.com>

   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |                         Q U O T A T I O N                         |
   |  "Democracy is a beautiful thing,                                 |
   |       except that part about letting just any old yokel vote."    |
   |                            - Age 10                               |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+