[EM] The Repoman strikes again

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Craig wrote:

>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.

An extremist is far from the center of where the voters are, and
is therefore particularly unliked. You can call that "bad" if you
want to. By jumping to extremes, IRV tends to elect particularly
disliked candidates. Bad or good? You decide.


>
>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.

Come again? So the candidate elected by the method less likely to
elect extremists isn't less likely to be an extremist? Are you sure
about that?

Or maybe it's that you're saying that an extremist isn't less likely
to be the best candidate. You're still misunderstanding this. It's
not about which candidate is the best, it's about which one
is the more democratic choice. For one thing, the extremist is a
less liked candidate. For another thing, his election is typically
a violation of majority rule. If that's ok with you then we merely
don't have the same standards.

>
>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.

It isn't clear what you mean by that. You don't find centrists desirable,
and you want a fair system that can push the system in that direction
anyway? Good, that sounds resonable.


Electoral
>theory should be based on the idea of a fair process, rather than on the
>idea of a desirable outcome.

You're welcome to your beliefs, even when they're believed only  by
you. Most, or nearly all, of our criteria are about outcome. On what
authority, then, do you tell us that "electoral theory" shouldn't be
based on outcome? Or are you still on Hitler and Mussolini?

One way of judging the fairness of process is by the fairness of its
results. We judge that according standards about outcomes, and
we measure for those standards by criteria. We have criteria like
Anonymity that say that all voters should be treated the same by
the balloting system & count rule. And we have various criteria
about fair & unfair outcomes.

It might be better to really get it straight what you mean before
you tell us what electoral theory should be based on.

Mike Ossipoff


>

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