[EM] To Eliminate or Not to Eliminate, that is the question:

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Don said:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12/22/00
>Edward Schaefer wrote:
>"Although I like the idea of the instant-runoff, I must question the
>rule of eliminating the person with the fewest first-choice votes."
>
>Dear Edward,
>      I can accept the elimination of the lowest candidate, but I would 
>like
>to tell you about a runoff method that does not eliminate candidates, I
>have such a method.
>
>      But first, allow me to say why I can accept elimination. It is 
>because
>an election not only elects a candidate, but it also eliminates the rest of
>the candidates. I have no problem if we start eliminating candidates one by
>one, and as soon as possible.

The trouble with that is that, as I said, IRV does its eliminations
by looking only at 1st place rank positions. In other words, IRV
does irrevocable actions based on looking only at a tiny fraction
of the information in the rankings. Can you imagine proceeding in that
way with any important project or job?





>      For those who do not like eliminating candidates, consider this 
>point:
>What would the voters do if they could repeat the election, after knowing
>the results of the first election??   (Voltaire: They would eliminate the
>lowest candidate in the repeat election)

Sorry, but Voltaire is mistaken. Seriously, don't attribute your
own stupidities to other people, even if they're deceased.

Often the "lowest" candidate that IRV would eliminate would win
in a subsequent count, when people who needed him as a compromise
moved their vote to him in that count.




>[Time out] What will be happening in this repeat election will be
>almost the same as what would happen if IRV were being used as a method in
>the first place.

Wrong. I told you why above. IRV eliminates a candidate that
may well win when people move their vote to him/her in a subsequent
count.

Therefore your following remark makes no sense.

>What I am saying is that IRV is the natural path that the
>voters themselves would follow to solve the problem of no majority.[end of
>time out]
>
>Of course, that is only what I think will happen, what do you think
>will happen in the repeat election??
>      And, what do you think will happen if the repeat election had the 
>rule
>that the winner will be the leading candidate, even if he does not have a
>majority??

Someone has to win even when no one has a genuine majority, as the
term is used by everyone but IRVies. I & others have commented on
your IRVie definition of "majority".

Your "Choice Runoff", which you formerly called "Runoffs Without
Eliminations", is better than IRV. But none of the IRVies will accept
it, because they seem determined to impose all the worst properties of
IRV on the voting public. The only value of "Choice Runoff" (aks RWE)
was as a compromise with IRVies. But IRVies won't compromise, and
so Choice Runoff loses its value. Since it's a rank method, we must
compare it to other rank methods. Condorcet offers important advantages
that Choice Runoff doesn't offer. Especially SFC & GSFC. And Summability. 
Summability makes a big difference in the amount of
computer memory and computation time needed, and in the opportunity
for fraud & falsification during the count.


p.s. I sometimes reply to Don, or comment on some IRVie argument that
he repeats. But I most often don't reply to Don, and so, when I don't,
that should never be construed to mean that Don has said something
unanswerable. It merely means that no one has time to reply to each
of his repititions of the same arguments or to his spamming EM with
postings from another list.

Mike Ossipoff


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com