[EM] Condorcet question - why not bullet vote

[robert bristow-johnson]

gone for a day.  this is only two days old but it looks like it sat  
around a lot longer.

On Jun 16, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
> ... there could be an honest CW, and bullet voting creates an  
> artificial cycle.

...

> Anyway, you cannot give simple guarantees like the one you stated ...


Jameson, i stated no guarantee.  and i acknowledge (and have  
previously understood) that in some circumstances, strategic voting  
can send Condorcet election into a cycle.  in fact, it seems to me  
that Bullet Voting is actually a subset of the Truncation strategy,  
and it was shown before (by you on May 12) how Truncation sends an  
election with a Condorcet Winner (candidate M for "middle") into a  
cycle where Schulze and would elect candidate RC (for "radical  
center").  that was a strategy that was successful in changing the  
outcome of the election to the liking of those who utilized the  
strategy.  i think we all recognize that it's all but guaranteed that,  
in real situations, those who utilize a strategy may possibly change  
an outcome of an election, but will seldom get the outcome they desire.

i wasn't clear, (i needed to use the word "consistently" somewhere),  
but i *still* really doubt that where there is a CW which is not the  
candidate some group of people want to elect, a voting strategy can be  
employed with only their own votes (without convincing other people to  
change their vote, which is what politics and election campaigns are  
all about) that will change the CW to that candidate this group of  
people want to elect.  all's they can hope to do, in *some*  
circumstances, is to throw the election into a cycle and hope that it  
is their guy that comes out on top from whatever rules of that  
particular Condorcet method.

i certainly did not mean to say that Condorcet are guaranteed to be  
free of cycles (but i *did* say that i think that, in real elections  
in reality, cycles will be rare, but i qualified that with what i  
*think*), and i certainly did not mean to say that Condorcet was  
strategy-proof if cycles are involved.  in fact, i don't think that i  
*did* say that nor did i use the word "guarantee".

but if cycles are *not* involved (at all, going into a cycle from a  
sincere CW or coming out of one), i would be interested in you showing  
us how a strategy, such as Bullet Voting, can change the CW from  
someone you didn't support to someone you do support.

and Jameson, i wouldn't mind if you would respond to my May 29 post  
(that was a reply to your post).  i had two questions and i tried to  
post a reminder about it on June 8.  of course you need not respond,  
but i would appreciate it.

bestest,

--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."