[EM] Dave reply, Feb. 19, 0831 GMT

[Dave Ketchum]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:31:23 +0000 Michael Ossipoff wrote:
 >
 > Dave said:
 >
 > There can be debate as to remembering A=B. For each 2 such votes I would
 > count as if there was 1 each of A>B and B>A.
 >
 > I reply:
 >
 > A>B and B>A would make sense if you’d power truncated A and B. But
 > saying that they’re equal is not the same as saying that each is better
 > than the other.

I am talking about actual ranking, not about something affected by PT.

Tom and Joe see A about equal to B.

Could be one says A>B and the other says B>A.

If they both say A=B, I would count one A>B and one B>A.

Giving, in general, the same counting for voting equal as for not, making
it easier for voters to say equal.
 >
 > Dave continues:
 >
 > Power truncation: As I read Michael's words, it would get remembered as
 > C>D and D>C - does not look useful.
 >
 > I reply:
 >
 > With N candidates in the election, for each candidate that you
 > power-truncate, your ballot casts a pair-wise vote for each of the N-1
 > other candidates over him/her. Useful? It’s extremely useful, because it
 > lets you give the worst vote-against that could be given, to as many
 > candidates as you want to.

I expect we started with the same thoughts.  I was objecting to the way
you wrote it down.  Starting with what you wrote above:
       Assuming 20 candidates, including A and B power truncated.
       When I get to candidate A, I do 19 copies of N>A
       When I get to candidate B, I do 19 copies of N>B
       Then I see that I have done a B>A PLUS an A>B.

Go back and read my words for normal truncation.  The truncated candidates
would be considered equal to each other, but nothing remembered about
this.  Each untruncated candidate would get remembered as winning against
each truncated candidate.
 >
 > Dave continues:
 >
 > ARLO? Seems complicated beyond believable value
 >
 > I reply:
 >
 > I certainly wouldn’t include ARLO or power truncation in a first
 > Condorcet proposal. But if, later, there was concern about strategy,
 > those options would be good solutions.
 >
 > The value of ARLO, and power truncation, is tremendous, for the timid
 > voter whose sincere ranking could otherwise be distorted by strategy
 > concerns. ARLO and PT are better than the favorite-betrayal or
 > unnecessary equal ranking, etc., that a strategy-timid voter might
 > otherwise feel the need to do.
 >
 > Condorcet has practically zero need for ARLO and PT. But they could
 > reassure the strategy-fearful voter.

If we agree they are not needed (they seem to be such), then dump them.
Including them would be a load on all the voters who had to decipher what
they meant.

Better to concentrate on teaching fishing out of the pool all the
candidates that the voter sees as worth positive ranking, leaving the dregs.

Now, if some voter feels a strategy need to fish X out of the pool ONLY to
rank X above Y, let him - if determined, he could do the same even with PT
and ARLO available.
 >
 > Dave continued:
 >
 > Think of an election for governor. Why should we not expect some
 > Republicans to place all non-Republicans below the line, and some
 > Democrats to respond in kind?
 >
 > I reply:
 >
 > So? What’s wrong with that? It will make it easier for Nader to beat the
 > Republicans <smiley>.  But, seriously, it has to be assumed that the
 > voters know what they’re doing and will use the options in their own
 > best interest.

I do not see how that helps Nader.  I do see that there could be several
voters placing ONLY Republicans above the line (as they see their best
interest), and some doing the same for Democrats.  The result to expect is
every candidate being placed below the line by at least one voter.

 >
 > Mike Ossipoff
 >
 >
 >
 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 >
 > ----
 > election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info


-- 
   davek at clarityconnect.com    people.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.