[EM] Another article on the Australian controversy

[David Catchpole]

It's debatable whether it counts as bribery. Most of the cases being
brought up in Australia involved clear preferences prior to any exchange
of money. It's a stretch to think the Dems in Lilley would have
preferenced the Libs. However, the Dems were also short on money, meaning
it's unlikely they would print how-to-vote cards that encouraged voters to
give their second preferences to the ALP unless someone gave them printing
money. In steps Wayne Swan with printing dosh.

On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

>
>
>
> >The thing I don't like about this is that Condorcet is just as vulnerable
> >to this sort of attack.  I suppose this is a good argument against
> >treating IRV as an acceptable "stepping stone" to IRV; the major parties
> >still have the power to exploit the system, without truly empowering the
> >minor parties.  This in turn creates a situation where people sour on the
> >whole concept of preference voting.
>
> Where a party is bribed to put another party high on their
> how-to-vote card, that's just another variation in the old problem
> of bribery. In the U.S. we don't have preferential voting, but
> does anyone think we don't have a bribery problem?
>
> So it's unfair to attribute that bribery problem to preferential
> voting. Sure, it's a form of bribery that is peculiar to preferential
> (or Approval) voting, but it seems obvious that, given a good
> rank-count (which IRV isn't), the voter's freedom to vote sincerely
> would have a more important effect against corruption than the
> preferential bribe would have for corruption. With Plurality,
> as Myerson pointed out, _any_ 2 parties can be made into
> equilibrium frontrunners by the media, by calling them "the 2 choices",
> even if everyone prefers someone else. I earlier talked about
> Myerson's corruption test. My Unanimously Unpreferred Candidate
> Criterion (UUCC) is a simplification and extension of Myerson's
> corruption test.
>
> My point is that Plurality is second only to Borda for electing
> despised, corrupt candidates. It would be absurd to say that the
> possibility of bribe-influenced how-to-vote cards outweighs the
> necessity of getting rid of Plurality, in regards to corruption.
>
> Plurality is worse than crooked how-to-vote cards.
>
> And if the
> voters do whatever they're told, if they misjudge that badly the
> honesty level of the people from whom they take advice, then that's
> the problem, not the voting system.
>
> Get rid of IRV, sure. But replace it with something better.
>
> Mike Ossipoff
>
>
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________________________
> Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
>
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guy at hot dog stand:	Yo, Dalai Lama, what'll you have?
The Big DL:		Make me one with everything.
				-Thanks to www.newgrounds.com