[EM] The Repoman strikes again

[LAYTON Craig]

Mike wrote:

>>The most recent
>>Russian presidential elections showed some indication that in the period
>>between that election and the previous two, a block of voters moved from
>>(excuse the spelling) Zhirinovsky, the extreme right candidate, to
Zuganov,
>>the Communist candidate.
>>
>
>Your spelling seems like what I've seen. Zhirinovsky & Zuganov
>were closer to eachother in the nationalism dimension. Maybe nationalism
>was important to some voters. One thing that's difficult to model
>in simulations is different voters's different perceptions of the
>importance of the issues. Other than that, people ranking Zhirinovsky
>& Zuganov both over the middle doesn't discredit spatial models.
>There's an issue dimension on which they were close.

Whether or not spatial models are accurate wasn't my prime concern.  It was
simply that; IRV elects extremists, extremists are bad, therefore IRV is bad
is not, in my opinion, a convincing kind of argument.

You're right; in the Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt example, Mussolini should
win, and we base this on non-partisan ideas about what constitutes the most
popular candidate, and who should really win in a democratic election, not
on the fact that the candidate who was elected by the method least likely to
elect extremists, is therefore the least likely to be an extremist, and is
therefore the best candidate.

Personally, I don't particularly like centrist politics, but I still support
the fairest electoral system, irrespective of the fact that it may possibly
push the political system in a direction that I find undesirable.  Electoral
theory should be based on the idea of a fair process, rather than on the
idea of a desirable outcome.