Direct LO2E, part 2

Mike Ositoff ntk at
Sun Oct 4 00:26:43 PDT 1998

> On Thu, 1 Oct 1998 18:09:43    Mike Ositoff wrote:
> >VA counts what those many voters want counted, while still
> >letting the express & have counted their vote for their
> >favorite against all the others. You can be assured that
> >when you vote Nader>Clinton>Dole, you've cast a reliably
> >& fully counted voted against Dole, fully helping the compromise
> >beat less liked candidates, which is what voters want.
> >
> >That isn't true with IRO or Margins. It's why VA was proposed.
> VA vs. Margins has nothing to do with whether votes are positive
> or negative.  The difference is that in VA the strength of a
> majority is based solely on the number of voters on the winning
> side.  In margins, it is the difference between the support
> of the winning and losing side.
> The voters on the losing side are just as likely to be negative as
> are those on the winning side.  So ignoring them has nothing to
> do with how strongly negative votes are counted.
> >I've discussed it in terms of strategy, majority wishes,'
> >and the voters' insistence on LO2E.
> Is this the same as the LO2E-2 Criterion you mentioned. That

I should have said "voting against someone" in that passage
instead of "LO2E".

> has little to do with VA vs Margins.  Any method that meets
> the Condorcet Loser Criterion meets that.  Simple Condorcet
> fails in both forms.

Actually no. Condorcet(EM) & some other VA versions, meet
LO2E-2, and Margins fails it, as does IRO. How could 
Margins meet it when it erases information about majorities?

> Blake
> -----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----
>  Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list