Shouldn't Talk To Santa Clara?

[Mike Ositoff]

> 


I agree completely with the results stated here. Let me summarize
them, and then copy the post:

Before the Leftist enters, both methods elect either the
Centrist or else the Centrist loses, but his voters have the
power to choose who does win.

After the Leftist enters, IRO is does the same as before, but
Runoff gives it to the Centrist for sure.

***

Now, do you say that's a bad thing, to give it to the Centrist
for sure?

The Centrist is the candidate who'd beat each one of the other
candidates, before or after the entry of the Leftist, in separate
2-candidate elections.

The fact that Runoff elects the Centrist for sure in the 4-candidate
case, but IRO could elect anyone, shows that Runoff, here, is
the method, of those 2 methods, that solidly elects the Condorcet
Winner (candidate who'd beat each one of the others in separate
2-candidate races).

If we fail to elect the Condorcet Winner, then we're going
to have a candidate who has a pairwise majority over the winner,
which means that we have a lot of dissatisfied voters, angry
& cynical voters. That's something to avoid.

Also, say the Centrist voters are equally divided between Liberal
& Conservative, and so the Liberal wins if the Centrist gets
eliminated. In that case, the Conservatives, suspecting that
that will happen, feel compelled to insincerely vote the Centrist
in 1st place, protecting the Condorcet winner, their best compromise
that they can get, to avoid the victory of someone they like
less. This is an example, then, of where IRO violates the
1st Choice Criterion, which says that there should never be
a need for someone to not vote his favorite in 1st place.

Violation of that criterion is, for me, the main reason to
get rid of FPP. Either of the proposed pairwise methods choose
the Centrist. Runoff chooses the centrist reliably in the
4-candidate example. In these examples, Runoff does a better
job of electing the CW than IRO does. That agrees with my
assessment of these methods in the more general kinds of
examples.

Mike Ossipoff
 





> Elect One / Vote for one
> ************************
> Majority Run-off
> 
> 1st example:
> ***
> Conservative 32%
> Centrist 32%
> Liberal  35%
> * * * * >>>Liberal Centrist
> If centrist finishes, it wins (because conservatives will prefer it)
> If Conservative finishes, it is a choice of the centrist.
> 
>  Results: Liberal, Centrist, or Centrist's choice
> 
> 
> 2nd example: * * * * * *
> 
> 
> --> Leftist 10%
> Conservative 32%
> Centrist 32%
> Liberal  25%
> 
> 
> Run off with Conservative / Centirst
> 
>  Results: Centrists
> 
> 
>  * * * * * *
> 
> 
> 1st example with IRO:   same
> 
> 2nd example with IRO:  Makes the election just like the 1st example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     This is how I see it. . . I shall re read your message to see if I can see
> where you are coming from.
> 
>     Basically, I feel that any improvement would be a miracle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > >
> > >
> >
> > That's 2 against, & 0 in favor of out-of-county IRO opponents
> > writing to people in Santa Clara County. So far then, it
> > looks like I won't write. Unanimous replies so far.
> >
> > >
> > > Mike Ositoff wrote:
> > >
> > > > This November, voters in Santa Clara will vote on whether or
> > > > not to authorize IRO for county elections. I've told why
> > > > I claim IRO is worse than Runoff, the method currently in use.
> > > >
> > > > Is there a reason why I shouldn't talk to people in Santa Clara
> > > > County about that? I'm an outsider? But haven't CVD outsiders
> > > > peddled their wares in Santa Clara, Texas, & New Mexico, etc.?
> > > >
> > >
> > >     Why would you fight an improvement in the electoral system, when
> > > such things are so few and far between?
> >
> > Yes, if IRO is perceived as an improvement, by people who want
> > improvement, then I don't want to be seen to be intervening
> > against improvement. Of course debating IRO on these lists isn't
> > like actually getting involved in a county election about it.
> >
> > >
> > >     Like it was said earlier, if there are 4 or more candidates the
> > > run-off election can unfairly cause electoral distortions; the split
> > > vote effect that needs no explanation.
> >
> > Sure, but so can IRO, as in my 5-candidate example.
> >
> > >
> > >     If there is a leftist/centrist/rightwing trio of candidates, support
> > > evenly matched for the two centrist/rightist candidates (with a slight
> > > plurality for the liberal candidate), and a fourth left-leaning
> > > enviormentalist candidate runs also, splitting the vote will cause the
> > > centrist and conservative candidates to be the only choices for the
> > > office.
> >
> > In that situation, the liberal would make the runoff. Whether
> > he'd win would depend on whether the Centrist or the Republican
> > came in 2nd and entered the runoff with him. If the Centrist
> > also made the runoff, then the centrist would win, with help
> > from the Republicans. If the Republican entered the runoff,
> > the Liberal & Leftist votes would give the LIberal an initial
> > advantage, which could be lost if the Centrists prefer the
> > Republican.
> >
> > In IRO, the Leftist gets eliminated 1st, and gives the
> > Liberal a plurality. If the Republican gets eliminated next,
> > then the Centrist wins. If the Centrist gets eliminated next instead,
> > then it could go to the Republican or the Liberal, depending on
> > how the Centrist rates those 2.
> >
> > So both methods could elect any of the 3, depending on details
> > of 1st & 2nd choice preference numbers.
> >
> > The merit differences between Runoff & IRO probbaly aren't
> > really extreme, though I'm more impressed by the generality
> > of the examples where Runoff does better.
> > >
> >
> > Anyway, these comments are just what I was trying to get--
> > to find out how intervention in Santa Clara against IRO would
> > seem to people. So thanks for the replies, and any further replies
> > are welcome & requested.
> >
> > So far, 2 opposed, 0 in favor.
> >
> > Mike Ossipoff
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >       _____   |~~~~~~~~~|   |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
> > > Y_,___|[] |   |  Visit  |   |     http://www.opposition.org       |
> > > |_|_|_|dd |_,_|_________|_,_|_____________________________________|
> > > //oo---OO=OO   OOO   OOO       OOO        OOO       OOO       OOO
> > > *   Daniel Davis - mailto:cicero13 at ufl.edu                           *
> > > *   Junior, University of Florida                                    *
> > > *   Encryption Certificate available at http://www.verisign.com      *
> > > *            VISIT MY WWW SITE AND SIGN MY GUESTBOOK AT              *
> > > *      ***http://www.opposition.org***                   *
> > > *                 MAGNA EST VERITAS, ET PRAEVALEBIT                  *
> > > **********************************************************************
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
> 
> 
> --
>       _____   |~~~~~~~~~|   |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
> Y_,___|[] |   |  Visit  |   |     http://www.opposition.org       |
> |_|_|_|dd |_,_|_________|_,_|_____________________________________|
> //oo---OO=OO   OOO   OOO       OOO        OOO       OOO       OOO
> *   Daniel Davis - mailto:cicero13 at ufl.edu                           *
> *   Junior, University of Florida                                    *
> *   Encryption Certificate available at http://www.verisign.com      *
> *            VISIT MY WWW SITE AND SIGN MY GUESTBOOK AT              *
> *      ***http://www.opposition.org***                   *
> *                 MAGNA EST VERITAS, ET PRAEVALEBIT                  *
> **********************************************************************
> 
> 
>