dfb at bbs.cruzio.com
Sat Nov 9 15:37:59 PST 1996
DEMOREP1 at aol.com writes:
> Mr. Ossipoff wrote--
> Demorep, you were asked for an example where Condorcet or
> Smith//Condorcet, without the y/n vote, would elect a majority- disapaproved
> alternative, other than in a situation where everything is abyssmally
> unpopular anyway. You didn't do so, so you're admitting that you can't find
> such an example, right? I don't blame you for admitting that.
> Demorep 1-
> Mr. Ossipoff assumes that the "other than" situation can not happen.
> The Titantic folk thought that the Titantic was unsinkable "other than" the
> "abyssmally unpopular" case of having the ship hit an iceberg and fill up
> with water and sink.
Sorry, that isn't an example. You were asked for an example.
p.s. The Titanic didn't sink because it _hit_ an iceberg. It sank because
it _grazed_ an iceberg, thereby opening a larger number of
compartments. But that still doesn't qualify as an example to
support your claim about what could happen with Condorcet's method.
Where you're confused is: I didn't assert that the problem you
named won't happen because I say so, or because something abyssmally
unpopular could never happen ever. I merely said that you haven't
shown an example of it happening. If what you're saying now is thta
it could happen even though you can't show an example, have you
heard the story of the 3 sillies, who were weeping & wailing in
the toolshed? When a neighbor came over & asked what the problem
was, they pointed to a hammer hanging on the wall and said,
"What if that hammer fell, and someone were standing under it?"
Right, Demorep, what if.
> As I have said before, it is unacceptable to raise the possibility of a
> minority rule percentage from simple plurality (such as 35 percent) to a
> somewhat higher percent (such as 45 percent due to additional choices from
> the voters who support some other third candidate as their first choice).
What's this "minority rule percentage" that you're talking about?
Anything to do with Condorcet scoring? What you're really saying is
uncacceptable, if I'm guessing you right, is to elect anyone when
everyone is disapproved by a majority. But you're missing the obvious
fact that the govt, if it's based on having a President, can't work
unless there's a President. So, as I said, the winner should still
be elected, even if everyone is majority-rejected, and a new
election should be held as soon as possible. Are you still blaming
the count rule for electing a majority-rejected candidate when
everyone is majority-rejected? :-)
> Mr. Ossipoff wrote--
> But I hope you've caught on to the fact that no one is opposing
> the idea of a y/n vote, with disqualification of anyone getting
> "n" from a majority.
> Demorep1- I do not see such comment in the SW report sent to the ER list. If
> such disqualification is vital, then it belongs in an amended SW report.
I didn't say anyone agreed that a y/n vote was "vital", only that
no one has expressed opposition to it. Since it could be added to
any method, it seems reasonable to not complicate the report by
adding peripheral issues that could be brought up later.
More information about the Election-Methods