[EM] Unranked IRV versus Approval - divergent winners exist!

[Tom Ruen]

A few comments...

> And why exactly would this not happen in any other method?

My point is a runoff process works to identify strong candidates and so this
should be a minimum reform over plurality.

Methods like Approval can work too, and more simply perhaps, but it is still
not very helpful in my opinion when there are 3 strong candidates. It is
still a game of chicken. Plurality is chicken of best or worst. Approval is
chicken of best or compromise. Both are offensive in their own ways.

> So advocate Random Ballot. I didn't think the point of elections was to
give
> multiple orgasms to politics enthusiasts....

About random ballots, here's a fun PR system for gamblers. Give every voter
100 points to distribute among all their choices as they like. Then add all
the points and pick a winner randomly in proportional to votes obtained.
This throws majority rule out the window as no candidate is guaranteed
victory without 100% of the vote. I can't think of any insincere voter
strategy under such a system. We might also allow a None-of-the-above
choice, and if this wins, we must hold a new election with new candidates!
Well, if we considered power as a responsibility to be shared, there is
merit here.

> > We can say that better methods exist than runoffs, but I'm not prepared
to
> > say that runoff really produce bad winners...
>
> But why should we use any method except the best?

Because there IS no best that will be agreed by all. Majority rule is not a
well defined concept with 3 or more choices.

> > It is a power game and king of the hill wins.
>
> Umm - this would be true in all election methods?

Runoffs are the best single-vote election method. Approval and Condorcet are
not single votes - they are N and N*(N-1)/2 elections which must be merged
somehow to pick a winner.

Tom

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Harper" <mcnh2 at cam.ac.uk>
To: <election-methods-list at eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] Unranked IRV versus Approval - divergent winners exist!


> [some snippage: apologies if I've mis-snipped, but I wanted to keep some
vague
> attempt at focus]
>
> Tom Ruen wrote:
>
> > Plurality among 3 is like a game of chicken between toy cars and real
cars,
> > except the toy cars can afford to crash while the big ones often manage
to
> > get wrecked too!
>
> > Runoffs (instant or not) take away that game until the toy candidates
grow
> > into viable options. Then the game of chicken returns
>
> So only big cars will crash? ;-) Seems like your game of chicken is
actually
> going to be worse under IRV...
>
> > and everyone has a chance to vote as they like, whether compromising or
not,
> > and finally get
> > the strongest of the biggest two coalitions.
>
> Well: the strongest of two of the coalitions, selected by the weirdness of
the
> runoff process, which may or may not be the biggest.
>
> > It is a power game and king of the hill wins.
>
> Umm - this would be true in all election methods?
>
> > Many people into politics love the top-runoff game, the excitement!
>
> So advocate Random Ballot. I didn't think the point of elections was to
give
> multiple orgasms to politics enthusiasts....
>
> > Plurality and runoffs both support 2 dominant parties.
>
> Dictatorship supports one, and Condorcet and Approval support as many as
you
> need. Two is better than one, but surely lots would be better than two?
>
> > [it's a game of compromise]
>
> But not a good game of compromise. If the best minimum wage is $4, the two
> dominant parties will stick on $3 and $5 - they won't compromise any more
> because they'll lose turnout, and set themselves up for defeat via spoiler
> candidates. Over the course of time the minimum wage will flip-flop over
the
> correct point, without ever getting to it.
>
> > We can say that better methods exist than runoffs, but I'm not prepared
to
> > say that runoff really produce bad winners...
>
> But why should we use any method except the best?
>
> > Runoffs produce winners through
> > coalition power, and coalitions are made from people who care to
participate
> > in the process more.
>
> "participate in the process" == "make deals in smoke filled rooms"?
>
> I'm old-fashioned, but surely the people who should decide which issues
are
> important, and which should be compromised upon, should be left up to the
> voters?
>
> > the process strengthens all the parties as they strive to stand
> > for things and be inclusive enough to win.
>
> And why exactly would this not happen in any other method?
> --
> Martin