Demorep1: Truncation. Approval.

[Mike Ossipoff]

DEMOREP1 at aol.com writes:

Mike writes: I unsubscribed from this list. Did I get this
message because the EM listserver didn't register my unsubscription,
or because Demorep decided to forward the message to me even
though I unsubscribed? Whichever it is, I meant to unsubscribe,
I thought I succeeded, and I wish to be unsubscribed until l
get an e-mail kill-file set up.

Now that I've received that letter, I'll reply to it. But 
first I'll mention something else more general. Both Demorep
Don have expressed contempt for releative preferences. I would
remind them that a sw choice, a choice between several alternatives,
is a relative question. Not "do you like this one?" but "How do
you like these in relation to eachother". Don would substitute
something else for the repecting of people's relative preferences,
& Demorep would add something that isn't compatible with it.
The relative choice could include such alternatives as "keep the
status quo", or "hold another election as soon as possible", for
, respectively, elections between alternatives & candidates.
But trying to mix absolute & relative preferences is contradictory
& nonsensical. The perjorative term "bastardization" really is
the right word for that.

I notice that in this latest letter, Demorep still chooses to
not reply to the strategy problems that I & others have pointed
out in Demorep's proposal.

> 
> Demorep1 wrote:
> I repeat--- the major competitors to plain Condorcet are top 2xN runoff (N=
> Number to be elected, in common use in nonpartisan elections and in partisan
> runoff primaries in 10 southern states), approval voting and instant run-off.
> All such 3 methods will probably produce a majority of all votes (MOAV)
> winner.
> ----
> Mr. Ossipoff wrote:
> What does a "majority of all votes winner" mean, and how do those methods
> "produce" it? As I always say at this point in the repetition, Runoff & IRO
> "produce" a fake majority winner. An alternative that is preferred to 1 other
> alternative, and is called a "majority winner"for that reason, even though a
> majority prefer someone else to it--a majority whose wishes are being
> violated by that "majority winner".
> -----
> Demorep1 writes:

In Demorep's examples below, the winner "gets" a majority" of the
voters according to some arbitrary rule that gives that those
voters to that candidate. That isn't quite what we mean by
majority rule, Demorep.  :-)

> Top 2 runoff example- 999 voters
> Primary
> W 324
> X 323
> Y 322
> Z   30
> Y and Z lose
> General Election
> X 438
> Y 561
> Y wins and gets a majority of all the voters.
> ----
> Approval voting example- 999 voters
> D  450
> E  510
> F  650
> G  423
> F wins and gets a majority of all the voters.
> ----
> Instant run-off example- 999 voters
> First elimination 
> G  210 - 210 = 0
> H  252 +   51 = 303
> K  314 +   42 = 356
> L  223  + 117 = 340
> G loses
> Second elimination
> H  303 - 303 = 0
> K  356 + 132 = 488 
> L  340 + 171 = 511
> H loses.
> L wins with a majority of all voters.
> ---
> A reminder, the Condorcet winner got a maximum of 335 (a minority) of 999
> votes from the-- 
>  A Condorcet major truncation example--
>  A 334
>  B 333
>  C 330
>  CB   2
>  2 of 999 voters made a second choice.   B wins a glorious victory and a
>  mighty mandate to be El Supremo by beating A 335 to 334 and by beating C 333
> to 332.
> 

As I said, if those voters who liked something better than B didn't
rank it over B, then that's their fault, & no method could help
them if they won't help themselves.


> One guess about which of the 4 reform method examples that (a) that your
> average, friendly focus group will regard as least acceptable from a majority
> of all voters viewpoint and/or (b) is easiest for incumbents to devastate
> with wave attacks of negative TV ads (that will make presidential candidate
> negative attack ads look like child's play).
> 

Sure there will be well-funded media attacks, but the solution isn't
to add something ridiculous & contradictory to the proposal, something
that the critics can rightly say defeats the purpose of the proposal.


> I concur, of course, with Mr. Ossipoff's "fake majority" comments about the
> Top 2, AV and IRO methods possibly producing the wrong winner on a head to
> head basis.  See my earlier postings having examples of defective Top 2, AV
> and IRO examples.
> 
> .-

Now, I'd like to _really_ be unsubscribed from EM & ER until I
get my e-mail kill-file set up. And if I already am, and if
Demorep has been forwarding his list postings to me, then
cease doing it, Demorep. Surely there are forms of recourse
if I continue to have postings forwarded to me by Demorep.


Mike

> 


--