Reply to DEMOREP on Lord Jenkin's Proposals

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Mr. Davidson wrote in part--

In closing I would like to question your example. I have seen these kind of
examples posted many times by Pairwise Guys.

     Example:  45 AC  40 BC  11 CB  4 CA   Is this one of Mike O's examples?
You should be aware that this is a concocted example. Voters would never vote
like this in a real election in the real world. Notice that the 85 voters of
candidate A and B have marched lockstep and selected candidate C as every one
of their second choices. This is unbeliveable - this would never happen.
Notice that this example gives candidate C a total of 100 first and second
choices. No candidate would ever recieve a choice from every single voter.
Notice that while candidate C got 100 choices,candidate A only received 49 and
candidate B only received 51. A very slanted example. Notice that while the
votes of candidate C is divided into two parts the votes of candidates A and B
are not divided at all. More deception. People do not vote like this. I will
show you how people vote:


        ___ A           ___ B           ___ C
        ___ AB          ___ BA          ___ CA
        ___ AC          ___ BC          ___ CB
        ___ ABC         ___ BAC         ___ CAB
        ___ ACB         ___ BCA         ___ CBA
       --------         -------         -------
         45              40              15                     er

     This is how people vote, they are going to vote 15 different combinations
of candidates for a three candidate race. You can fill in the blanks with
random numbers to give the same totals for A, B, and C of 45, 40, and 15. Once
that is done, you will have a realistic example. Now maybe Condorcet will
improve by having less circular ties and by having the same winner as the
"Choice Run-Off Winner".

     Do not let the Pairwise Guys influence you. They have an agenda. Their
game plan is to get some single seat method installed that will allow them, by
hook or by crook, to win seats for their third party candidates in single seat
districts electing lawmakers. Their method of choice is Condorcet - a good
hook.
----
DEMOREP1--  Election reform methods must take into account so-called extreme
examples.  

The so-called Choice Run-Off Winner (IRO, IRV or whatever) method is a fanatic
scheme to elect extremists who have extremist pluralities as early choices
(especially first choice votes).

Another extreme example (counting only first choice votes). 1931 U.K. election
during the Great Depression--

Hitler agent 35
Stalin agent 34
Winston Churchill 31

or the various combinations of Mrrs. H, S and C using 35, 34 and 31 votes or
perhaps 35, 34, and 33. 

Mr. Davidson can speculate to doomsday about how many voters of each candidate
group is going to vote for another candidate.

Mr. Davidson like many others seems to be totally unaware that having 3 or
more choices does NOT change the head to head concept when there are only 2
choices.  The general case is N (1 or more) vs. 1 with the others being
presumed losers for all legislative, executive and judicial  elections and
issues (on the same subject).

As Mr. Davidson should well know by now (but refuses to learn), a single
winner method should be used only for single executive or judicial offices or
issues on the same subject (i.e. laws).   

Various proportional representation methods can be used for electing members
of legislative bodies so that X percentage of the votes produces X percentage
of the seats (or voting power in the legislative body).

Thus, do not let the Choice Run-Off Winner (IRO, IRV or whatever) method
fanatics brainwash you about single winner reform.