[EM] RE: Let's found an organization to oppose IRV

LAYTON Craig Craig.LAYTON at add.nsw.gov.au
Sun Nov 12 18:02:28 PST 2000

Mike wrote (in part):

>To a H or S voter it must look as if Washington is equally likely to
>be frontrunners with H or S. Unless W is _exactly_ halfway between
>H & S, one side considers W closer to his side, making W's difference
>from the other side the important utility difference. One side will
>vote for Washington if they're trying to optimize their outcome.
>Washington will win. Hopefully he'll free his slaves before he takes

Yeah, it's possible, but I don't think H or S voters would actually vote
like this.  I think they'd be much more likely to gamble on winning
outright, rather than ensuring a Washington victory.  In fact, if both
Hitler and Stalin voters locked themselves into this strategy, then
Washington voters might well be forced to consider lesser of two evils (I
would think that moderates are more likely to try to optimise thier
outcomes, while extremists are more likely to want to make a point).  But
the fact is, there is no way to tell what outcome is the most likely, which
is what my original point was.  Voters do not always vote to optimise the
electoral outcome (or else more Nader voters would have voted for Gore.
They were certainly aware that they could cost him the election).  However,
there are other points to voting other than getting in to office.  Many
groups may consider sacrificing their LOTE candidate in favour of making a
point / raising an issue / giving voters a genuine alternative, with the
hope of winning at some point down the line, to have more utility benifits
than actually getting your LOTE candidate elected.  Stalin and Hitler (and
even Washington) voters might consider that civil war is a better
alternative than having ANY other candidate elected.

Craig Layton

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list