[EM] 12/09/02 - Betrayal of the IRV voters by the Charlatans:

[Dave Ketchum]

I choose only to defend Condorcet, since I see Approval as having its own 
problems.

On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 05:43:32 -0500 Donald E Davison wrote:

> 12/09/02 - Betrayal of the IRV voters by the Charlatans:
> 
> Greetings James Gilmour and list members,
> 
> James, you wrote: "No matter how many times ballot papers are recounted
> under the IRV rules I have used for many years, you will always obtain the
> same result.  So there should be nothing haphazard about it."
> 
> You are correct James, there is nothing haphazard about the IRV rules, but
> what is haphazard about this debate you are having is that these supporters
> of Condorcet and Approval insist on access to all the lower choices of an
> IRV election so that they can construct a bogus argument that the IRV
> method elected the wrong candidate.


Easiest translation of the above paragraph is that it represents a desire 
that the debate be won by whoever can put most emphasis into pounding on 
the desk, and that merits of the issues should not be considered.

SAD!!!

> 
> These cult members want to be able to stand on their soap boxes and yell
> that the wrong candidate has been elected.  As proof, they will present
> their results from using one of their weird methods on the IRV ballots.
> They plan to use the IRV ballots to prove that IRV is a defective method,
> but in order to do that they need access to the ballots, that's why they
> are opposed to the secrecy of the ballots.


Secrecy will get discussed in a later post, so I skip it for now.

> 
> One solution is for most of the voters not to make any lower choices.  If
> an IRV election has two candidates that are head and shoulders ahead of the
> rest of the pack, then the voters of those two candidates should not make
> any lower choices.  Doing this will take the wind out of the Condorcet and
> Approval methods, if and when the IRV ballots are misused by these
> charlatans.  In order for these two weird methods to be operational, it is
> necessary that the voters of the leading candidates betray themselves and
> their first choice by making lower choices, but if these voters do not make
> any lower choices, then there is no betrayal.


So much effort went into making the noise loud that there was little left 
for any possible merit.

If ANY "election has two candidates that are head and shoulders ahead of 
the rest of the pack, then the voters of those two candidates" need not be 
concerned as to possible lower choices - IRV will never see such choices 
and Condorcet, while it will see them, will not be influenced since the 
strength of the two is already stated as overpowering all else.

IRV and Condorcet will agree as to winner in most elections.  The usual, 
if not only, cause for disagreement is ballots whose first choice is a 
loser and IRV rules preventing IRV from considering what these ballots say 
as to the leading candidates.

> 
> Lower choices in an IRV election are merely there in case a voter may wish
> to change his vote, but in most cases the lower choices are not necessary
> and should not be regarded as more information that the voter wants to be
> used in the election.  These charlatans have no right to assume that lower
> choices are held as high by the voters as the voters first choice.


Still noise over merit.


If the voter has any desire to change his vote the proper time for 
attending to this is before marking his ballot.

Likewise, once a voter has presented all the information he wishes to have 
used as to the election, there is no value in presenting more.

In spite of the way it is presented above, agreed that a voter's first 
choices are properly held highest.  This is not inconsistent with 
Condorcet's being willing to honor lower choices when a voter's higher 
choices do not show a preference among the leading candidates.

> 
> James, you are debating with persons who have limited foresight.  They fail
> to see that if and when one of their weird methods becomes legal in some
> jurisdiction, that the method can be rended usless by the voters at the
> ballot box - the charlatans are backing a sure loser.


What means "rended"?

> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
>    Donald Davison, host of New Democracy at http://www.mich.com/~donald

-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    http://www.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
   Dave Ketchum    108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708    607-687-5026
              Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                    If you want peace, work for justice.

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em