[EM] 12/13/02 - Giving `crutches to weak candidates':

[Craig Carey]

Great style of example and it pointedly reminds that the reformers
that said the Alternative Vote fixed some vote splitting problem
with First Past the Post were lying. E.g. the CVD top leaders
certainly are recalled by us (Chessin, Dan and Rob, and others).

To some extend the complaint about vote splitting is about the
periphery of the simplex of all possible postive ratios of ballot
paper counts. This flawed so called IRV violates monotonicity thus
it is making alterations nearer the centre of the simplex.

Did they any one of them complain of a problem nearer the centre
of the simplex. They are so rugged out with lying about IRV that
that they write about a "wasted vote syndrome". Which part of the
simplex is that syndrome worst in -- they don't get that detailed,
no need to indifferent to whether IRV is one of the worst methods
around.

With Greens, an anaolgy with the care of sick animals is apt.

A poor sick very large US Eagle (e.g. city near Steve Chessin) has
a wounded wing or a broken eyebrow, and the CVD has bandage tying
a leg to a tail. Still (ever since the 1990s when the CVD appeared)
it has always been like that.




At 02\12\18 13:03 -0500 Wednesday, Adam Tarr wrote:
 >Don Davison wrote:
 >
 >>... why are
 >>you supporting Condorcet and/or Approval Voting?  For, this is what these
 >>two method do, they give `crutches to weak candidates'.
 >
 >Do you mean weak candidates like "Centrist", below?
 >
 >10% FarRight>Right>Centrist>Left>FarLeft
 >10% Right>FarRight>Centrist>Left>FarLeft
 >15% Right>Centrist>FarRight>Left>FarLeft
 >16% Centrist>Right>Left>FarRight>FarLeft
 >15% Centrist>Left>Right>FarLeft>FarRight
 >13% Left>Centrist>FarLeft>Right>FarRight
 >11% Left>FarLeft>Centrist>Right>FarRight
 >10% FarLeft>Left>Centrist>Right>FarRight
 >
 >Note that this is an easy, realistic example... I just put five candidates
 >on a standard political spectrum.
 >
 >Let's look at who has the most first-place support:
 >
 >31% Centrist
 >25% Right
 >24% Left
 >10% FarLeft
 >10% FarRight
 >
 >Or who has the most second place support:
 >
 >28% Centrist
 >26% Right
 >25% Left
 >11% FarLeft
 >10% FarRight
 >
 >In addition to having the most first AND second place support, Centrist is
 >the only candidate that is never ranked lower than third on any
 >ballot.  And yet, as you surely realize, Centrist loses in IRV.  Right will
 >beat Left 51%-49% in the final runoff, even though Centrist would beat Left
 >or Right by around thirty percentage points -- absolute landslides.
 >
 >How could anyone call Centrist a "weak candidate" with a straight
 >face?  Weaker than who?
 >
 >>Non-monotonicity is a bad joke, it does not exist, it has never
 >>happened in a real election,
 >
 >This is because no real election has ever had three strong parties.  IRV
 >keeps any third party from threatening the other two.  History backs me up
 >on this.  Is that a positive feature in your mind?
 >
...

Monotoncity maybe more than a principles that they will only make very
crooked comments about: it may be a positively desired principle, and it
the detail of it perfectly rejecting their desires seems to distort what
would otherwise be a very very topic of how they embrace the idea that
monoticity is as needed as irrationality is an unsafe thing to expose a
civilisation of a city, to.



  

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