[EM] Replacement Candidates? - Where are you hiding?

[Ron Tannenwald]

>Greetings,
>
>Ron Tannenwald wrote:
>     To justify my choice of a voting procedure let me set forth some
>criteria I feel are necessities.
>
>    1.Majority Criteria  (i.e. if a candidate is the first choice of a
>majority, that candidate wins)
>
>    2.The winner must have the approval of a majority of voters.
>
>    3.The method should be simple to explain,understand,and implement.
>
>   With the understanding that no method is ideal,my preference would be
>Bucklin voting with the proviso that should no candidate receive majority
>approval the election is void and no present candidate can run in the new
>election.
>
>    Bucklin voting is certainly simple and has been used historically;
>voters immediately saw that their lower choices might hurt their favorites
>(a property common to most ranking systems without elimination, but not so
>obvious) and so many voted bullets.The second part of my scheme is meant to
>discourage strategic truncation of ballots.Voters do so now at their peril.
>
>Respectfully,  Ronald Tannenwald
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Dear Ronald Tannenwald,
>
>     Your three necessary criteria will be satisfied by Bucklin, but the
>second part of your scheme will not discourage the voting of bullets.
>     The voting public does not function with one mind. Many, if not all,
>will try to "get away with something" by "takin' a chance" on making only
>one choice.
>
>     Your proviso that no present candidate can run in the follow up
>election is harsh and unacceptable.
>     Some on this list complain run-off eliminates candidates. Now you are
>suggesting that all the candidates be eliminated in one step.
>     The public wants to vote for their most preferred selection, they
>should be free to do so. Besides, where are you going to find replacement
>candidates? Qualified candidates are not that easy to come by.
>     If you do find some replacement candidates, that are able and willing,
>why were they not running in the first election?
>
>     While Buckin is superior to Approval and Borda, it still has the same
>flaw of the lower choices helping to defeat the first choice.
>     Your proviso will not eliminate this flaw.
>     Your proviso attempts to punish the public while it is the method that
>is bad. Any method is bad that uses lower choices while the first choice is
>still a contender.
>     The public is willing to accept the policy of eliminating the lowest
>candidate.
>
>     Everybody should "Learn to Love Run-Off - it will Set You Free."
>
>Regards,
>Donald
>
>+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
> T H E   C O D E   O F   H O N O R   F O R   R E F O R M   A C T I V I S T S
>
>     Any group of reform activists that are thinking about a petition drive
>to place a proposal on the ballot are to present their proposal beforehand
>to all other reform activists that they know of. The time for debate and
>negative comments is before the petition stage. Once the group makes its
>final proposal and enters the petition stage, the debates and negative
>comments by all reform activists is to cease.
>    At this time each activist is to make an honest evaluation. If the
>initiative will improve government then each activist is to find it in his
>heart to support the initiative, even if it is not exactly what the
>activist would like.
>
>   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
>   |                         Q U O T A T I O N                         |
>   |  "Democracy is a beautiful thing,                                 |
>   |       except that part about letting just any old yokel vote."    |
>   |                            - Age 10                               |
>   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
>
>                            N E W S L E T T E R
>
>                    Worldwide Direct Democracy Newsletter
>                     Four Issues per Year by Postal Mail
>             Cost per year: Czech Republic 200 Kc,  Europe 12 DM
>                          Outside of Europe  $10
>
>              Make check payable to: Account Number 13164-30-01
>              Mail to:  (Polak Jiri,ded)
>                        Ceska sporitelna, a.s.
>                        Jugoslavska 19
>                        Praha2,  Czech Republic
>          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>                         N E W    D E M O C R A C Y
>              A Source of Study Material for Political Change
>
>                        http://www.mich.com/~donald
>          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  Dear Donald,

      I agree that runoff voting does not possess the shortcoming of
non-elimination ranking schemes(i.e. lower ranked candidates can help defeat
favorites). However STV is not particularly easy and heavily favors candidates
with small but fervent support (e.g. single-issue constituencies) to the
exclusion of more "acceptable" compromise candidates.Such "acceptable"
candidates are very likely to be eliminated in the first rounds leaving a
field
of "extreme" choices none of whom is acceptable to the backers of the others.
Just as in plurality voting (a much simpler method) a winner might be totally
unacceptable to an overwhelming majority of the electorate.In addition STV
is non-monotonic;it seems weird that you can help your favorite by not voting!
No system is without its flaws. Perhaps my idea would be improved by allowing
all candidates in a second election;eventually,though,something has to be done
to prevent a reoccurence of strategic truncation.

      Cordially,

Ronald Tannenwald
Chairperson, Mathematics Department
UMass Dartmouth
North Dartmouth MA, 02747
(508) 999-8746
Fax: 508-910-6917