Wasted non-rankings (was Re: What if they had a war and no one c

[Steve Eppley]

Donald wrote:
-snip-
>The results of the Condorcet election will be the same as the
>Plurality election. The reason for this is because EXPERIENCED
>voters in a Condorcet election will not make a second selection -
>because they know that the second selections will be used to help
>some candidate other than the candidate of their first choice. 
-snip-

Earth to Donald, earth to Donald...  

Though voting a second selection in Condorcet helps the second
selection, it doesn't help the second selection defeat the first
selection.  It helps the second choice defeat the third choice,
etc.  This is exactly what the voters want in a voting method.

Experienced voters understand that one of their goals is to defeat
the greater evils. 

In the Plurality system, plenty of voters hold their noses and vote
for a non-favorite, knowing full well this will help their favorite
lose.  They WANT to help a candidate who isn't their first choice
defeat other candidates who they dislike even more.  Plenty of
progressives voted for second choice Clinton, plenty of Libertarians
voted for Dole or Clinton instead of Harry Brown.  Plenty of people
who voted for Buchanan in the primaries chose not to vote for him as
a write-in in the November election, instead giving their votes to
someone who wasn't their true first choice.

They won't have to vote for only one in a Condorcet election, since
second selections help defeat worse selections but don't help defeat 
their first selection. 

How about an example, Donald, which shows why it's rational for 
voters to vote for only one?

Consider these sincere preferences:
  35:A
  32:B
  33:C>B>A
Why would it be rational for the 33 to vote 33:C instead of 33:CBA?

The votes:
  35:A                                     35:A
  32:B                    or               32:B
  33:C                                     33:CB
The Condorcet tally:
      A    B    C                              A    B    C
  A       35L  35L                         A       35   35L
  B  32        32         or               B  65L       32
  C  33   33L                              C  33   33L
    ---- ---- ----                           ---- ---- ----
  LL  0   35   35                          LL 65   33   35
  A wins.                                  B wins.

The rational thing to do is to vote in such a way that the outcome is
improved, not worsened.  From their point of view, the best outcome
is "C wins" and the worst outcome is "A wins."  By voting for only
one choice, they'd be causing the worst outcome.  It's ridiculous to
think experienced voters would do this.  By the definition of 
preference orders, they obviously want to help B beat A.  

They don't want to waste their votes, and they don't want a tally
method which will waste their votes. 

---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)