Donald Davison on Condorcet (was Re: Reply to Hugh Tobin's lette

[Steve Eppley]

Donald D wrote:
-snip-
>Note that the Condorcet winner of this last example is candidate C.
>Now - a similar question can be asked: Do electoral reformers want
>to try to explain to the public why C is the winner?
-snip-

Sure:  C is the compromise choice.  By majorities, C is preferred
more than A and more than B.  

(The only pairing MPV looks at is the "A vs B" pairing.  MPV ignores
most of the voters' clearly stated preferences.)

>The public is willing to accept the votes of C voters as deciding
>votes in a run-off between A and B but is the public willing to
>accept C as the winner?

I think most people will understand why a compromise is better than a 
plurality winner, and why a system which lets more candidates compete 
is better than one where viable candidates stand down to avoid 
electing a greater evil, and why a system which lets the voters 
sincerely rank their favorite ahead of the compromise (or lesser 
evil) is better than one where voters need to rank the compromise (or 
lesser evil) ahead of their favorite.  But let's ask them, to be sure.

>I would be inclined to say No. The final answer to all these
>questions is that the public will learn and adjust to whichever
>method is in use in their area. One possible adjustment is for them
>not to make any more selections than one. 

   *** Alert!  Disorderly discussion! ***
The author of the above has repeated an allegation which has been
repeatedly rebutted, yet has never attempted to rebut the rebuttal. 
The author is violating "due process" of maillists to assert it again
without replying to the rebuttal.  
   **************************************

Personally, I consider disorderly discussion to be as damaging to
maillists as flaming is.

As demonstrated by his recent question about whether a candidate who
isn't first-ranked on any voter's ballot can be tallied pairwise,
Donald is still fairly clueless about Condorcet's method.  I don't 
believe the general public will have as hard a time understanding
it as Donald has.

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