[EM] Responses to some of Forest's ideas
Richard Moore
rmoore4 at home.com
Thu Jul 19 21:19:28 PDT 2001
Blake Cretney wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:21:43 -0700
> Richard Moore <rmoore4 at home.com> wrote:
>
>
>>One thing to remember is that no election method can
>>distinguish between the case where A and C are extremists
>>and B is a moderate compromise (the electorate being highly
>>polarized), and the case where A and C are the moderate
>>representatives of opposing viewpoints and B is the village
>>idiot with 8 close friends or relatives.
>>
>
> That is true, as long as either
> a) The two moderate groups prefer the village idiot to the other
> side.
> b) They don't prefer the village idiot, but vote as if they do.
I was referring to Forest's example which I'll repeat again
here:
45 A >> B > C
45 C >> B > A
2 C > A >> B
4 B > A >> C
4 B > C >> A
There aren't really any "moderate groups" since the A voters
could range from moderate to extreme left and the C voters
could range from moderate to extreme right. But the two
large factions in this example do prefer the VI to the other
extreme (I'm assuming Forest has given sincere preferences,
although all he specified was that it was zero-info). So
Blake's (a) condition is met.
> If a is true, then maybe he isn't such an idiot.
Well, I must admit "village idiot" is a bit of a hyperbole.
What I mean is that the vast majority might perceive this
candidate to be an ineffective leader. Many people might
prefer an ineffective leader to an effective one whom they
perceive to be leading the village in the wrong direction.
Since the method can't tell if B is a village idiot or not,
it's up to the people, but if the method allows a low
utility candidate (CW or not) to win, then the people might
not always be able to send that message via that method. Or
for the reason I gave above, they don't want to send that
message badly enough. That was the point Forest was making.
My point is that a method that screens out low-SU candidates
may also (at times) allow a compromise candidate to be
neglected. However, I believe that will only happen if the
electorate is highly polarized, so it may be a worthwhile
trade-off.
> If b is true, at
> least the idiot is representative.
LOL!
Richard
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list