[EM] FPP vs IRV: Monotonicity. Funny example.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

EM list--

I forgot to add another advantage of FPP over IRV: Motonicity.

Monotonicity failure can be really funny:

Newspaper story the morning after an IRV Presidential election:

"President Moe has failed in his re-election bid. The only difference
in the rankings, between this time and the previous election, won
by Moe, is that this time some people moved Shemp from 1st place
to last place, when some of his secret campaign contributions were
discovered. President-elect Shemp gave his acceptance speech at
1:00, Eastern Time."

The above story is based on an example by Professor Steven Brams,
in which a candiate wins because some people move him from 1st place
to last place.

Of course I realize that when that happens, the voters involved might
not consider it funny. Obviously no one but a CVD IRVie could
consider IRV an acceptable method.

Craig asked whether CVD is hiding IRV's problems, or whether CVD
is merely ignorant of them. I'd say it's a little of both.

In the California LWV study, the IRVies have a large presence on the
study committee, maybe a majority. They have 3 IRV promoting articles
at their study website, but so far have refused to put up an Approval
article, though Approval is officially part of the study.

Ray Bennett, one of the committee co-chairs, did say that they'd
eventually add 1 article that would be divided between Approval and
2 multiwinner methods. In other words, IRV gets 3 articles, and
Approval gets 1/3 of 1 article.

Also, note that that mention of Approval would be written or chosen
by IRVies, or members of the study committee that they dominate,
while of course their IRV articles are also written by IRVies. So
IRVies write the IRV articles and the Approval material.

But, again, that's all academic anyway, since the IRVies have so
far refused to include any Approval material at the website.

It would seem that the CVD/CPR IRVies believe that IRV can't win
honestly. I'd say they're right.

That's a roundabout answer to Craig's question: Certainly it looks like
the IRVies at CVC want to hide IRV's problems. IRVies have never been
big fans of open equal discussion. Sleaze is a word that suggests
itself.

The California LWV's voting systems study looks like it's going to
have all the legitimacy of a Ferdinand Marcos election.

Craig asked if CVD is ignorant of IRV's problems. I think that's part of
it too. IRVies have a tendency to misrepresent themselves as experts,
but I'd say that they're pretty much entirely ignorant about single
winner methods.

However that doesn't mean that they aren't able to form an intent
to conceal IRV's problems, or to push their inadequate proposal
through without letting their oppostion be heard--as the LWV
example shows.

I paid $50 to join LWV for a year(LWV allows men to join), but this study 
farce is making it embarrassing to admit that I'm a member of LWV.

So, in summation, I'd say that, with CVD/CPR, it's a combination
of dishonesty and ignorance, and that the ignorance in no way
diminishes or excuses the dishonesty.

Mike Ossipoff


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

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.