[EM] Monotonicity, but Participation too

[Blake Cretney]

MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

> > > Still, it's irrational for the method to react to your ballot
> > > in a way that's opposite to your expressed wishes. That shows that
> > > we have to accept a little occasional irrationality, in return
> > > for some very desirable other criterion compliances. It's worth
> > > it of course.
> >
> >What do you mean by "irrational"?  Do you mean that the behaviour is
> >counter-intutive, incorrect, or something else?
> 
> Counter-intuitive, sure. But more than that. I can't say that
> it's incorrect in an absolute sense, because correctness depends
> on what we expect. I think that many people expect a voting
> system to not react to their ballot by changing the winner from
> A to B, when that ballot ranks A over B. To many that would seem
> wrong or incorrect, though I wouldn't want to use that absolute
> term.

Would you say that it is possible for one method to provide on
average better government or decisions than another?  If not, what do
you see as the purpose of electoral reform?

For example, given the votes
70% A > B
30% B > A

would you say that a method that elects A will on average provide
better decisions for these ballots than a method that picks B?  Or are
either choice equally likely to be the best choice?

---
Blake Cretney