[EM] The Repoman strikes again

[LAYTON Craig]

Mike wrote (in part):

>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.

I absolutely agree.  There is a strong implication in the Hitler,
Washington, Stalin example that Condorcet tends to pick the "best"
candidate.  This makes Condorcet sound partisan and weakens the argument.

>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.

Electoral theory is about proceedural fairness.  If I am a dictator, and I
hand-pick the parliament, the election system isn't fair or desirable, even
if I consistantly pick the people who would have been the Condorcet
candidates if there had been a democratic election.  Certainly, you can't
evaluate proceedural fairness without looking at outcomes in some respect,
but there is a difference in saying "Candidate A should be the president
because she has been elected by a fair and transparent electoral system" and
"Candidate A is the candiate who should be rightfully elected.  Any
electoral system that elects candidate A is a fair and transparent electoral
system."

If you say the latter, you're working backwards.  Say there is a sincere
Condorcet winner in an election.  Should that candidate win, even if the
voters don't vote sincerely and another candidate is the voted Condorcet
winner?  Of course not.  We all think that the fairness of the proceedure is
more important than the fairness of the outcome, if only because you can
guarantee a fair proceedure with much more certainty than a fair outcome.