[EM] Bad Condorcet winners?

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

>Mike,
>
> > There's been some mention here about bad Condorcet winners. Presumably
> > that's Condorcet winners who don't have high first choice totals.
>
> > Bad for whom? Who is wronged when we elect such a Condorcet winner.
> > The majority who prefer him to A? The majority who prefer him to C?
>
>Condorcet is bad for the candidates who would have won under plurality
>runoffs or IRV but lose under Condorcet!

Then every voting system is bad for someone. Not everyone can win,
and so every voting system is bad?

>
>I've also met a number of people, who when I talked about IRV, they were
>deathly afraid it would have allowed Nader to win the presidency. IRV never
>helps a weak middle win, but Condorcet will.

You're using the IRVie definition of a weak candidate. Are the IRVies
all crypto-Plurality-advocates for whom Plurality is their standard?

>It actually took me a while to
>convince my cousin that he actually preferred Bush to Nader second. He
>assumed he would somehow be forced to vote Nader second.
>
>Well, this shows that in a Condorcet election voters must take lower
>preferences more seriously than in IRV.

I have no idea why you think it shows that. You're just repeating an
old IRVie mistaken claim. And, as I've pointed out before, the only
reason why your 2nd choice vote can't hurt your 1st choice is because
IRV eliminates your 1st choice before it lets you help your 2nd choice.
IRV saves your 1st choice by killing him. Electoral euthanasia.

>
> > Tom, do you accept the poll on polling topics? And, since, with Voter's
> > Choice a voter can designate Runoff Approval, do you accept that more
> > general voting system?
>
>I'm still counting in the month election - 28 ballots so far.

How many from EM?

>I'm not very interest in technical subject polls since I'm asking everyone 
>I
>can get to participate.

But voting systems are a topic of interest here. We're taking nominations
on what _EM list members_ would prefer a poll on.

But your preference for a poll on months is duly noted.

>
>I'm afraid I haven't paid enough attention to understand Voter's Choice.

Suit yourself. Do you have any idea how many voting systems you've
defined in the last few months and asked people to consider? Voter's
Choice isn't just one more voting system, however; it's a way to proceed
when people don't agree on what voting system to use. Unlike you,
I prefer not to say "Voting will have to by the voting system that
I designate".

Voter's Choice isn't complicated. You vote on the
alternatives by casting whatever kind(s) of ballots you want to.
Ranking, CR ballot, Approval ballot, etc. And you designate which
voting system you want to govern the placement of your Approval cutoff
point, for the placement of your Approval votes in the actual final
Approval count. Those Approval votes are what actually determine the
winning alternative.

>
>I'm basically content now to work with simple Approval and actual runoff
>elections.

...and to make Runoff Approval compulsory for your poll, regardless of
whether people prefer another method.


>
>If we're going to do systematic test elections, I won't participate to
>include Approval unless single-vote Plurality is also included since they
>are the ones I'm interested in comparing now.

Based on people's rankings &/or ratings, there's nothing stopping anyone
from doing a Plurality count. But I certainly don't want to ask people
to take the trouble to do a special Plurality ballot, when no one here
advocates Plurality.

Mike Ossipoff


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com