[EM] Equal Ranking of some Candidates in a STV election

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

EM list--

I can only comment on this suggestion in regards to 1-winner STV,
but let me comment anyway.

Some of us have found that 1-winner STV, promoted in the U.S. under
the name Instant Runoff (IRV), could meet the criterion known
as WDSC, or the Drastic Defensive Strategy Criterion, if voters were
allowed to split their vote among more than one candidate, by ranking
more than 1 candidate at a rank-position.

Let me repeat that criterion, which I'll call WDSC or DDSC.
First, let me say that I at first called it Weak Defensive Strategy
Criterion, because it's relatively easy to meet, and, in that sense
is a weak criterion. But it's been suggested that "weak" could be
taken as implying that the strategy is weak. Since the criterion is
about the most drastic form of defensive strategy, another name was
suggested that reflects that. I believe the suggested new name was
Drastic Defensive Strategy Criteriion, which I'll abbreviate DDSC.

Anyway, here's the criterion:

DDSC:

If a majority of all the voters prefer A to B, then they should have a
way of ensuring that B can't win, without any member of that majority
voting a less-liked candidate over a more-liked one.

***

DDSC is met by Approval, Bucklin, & all the Condorcet versions,
including SD, SSD, Tideman, DCD, & PC. IRV fals DDSC. But it has
turned out that IRV could be made to meet that criterion merely
by letting voters divide their vote among several candidates by
ranking them equal. It would probably be enough to allow that only
in 1st choice position, though it would make more sense to allow
shared rank-positions anywhere in one's ranking.

But no. All the IRVies to whom we've suggested this IRV mitigation
have been unwilling to include it in their proposals. It would seem
that IRVies are determined to impose all of their meritless method's
worst problems on the voting public.

That mitigation, which we called "Nonstrict IRV", was one of several
mitigations that we offered to the promoters who are pushing IRV.
None of the mitigations were accepted, and now it's evident that
there's no such thing as a compromise with IRVies, because they
won't compromise their method's meritlessness.

Mike Ossipoff

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com