[EM] Bad Condorcet winners?

[Tom Ruen]

Mike,

> >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?

This is reality of our current system. Plurality rules until enough people
say otherwise. If you're comparing to real elections, the standard is
plurality. A weak plurality candidate has below average first rank votes.
I'll try to qualify "weak" in the future.

> >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.

This isn't knocking Condorcet. IRV ignores most lower choices while
Condorcet always considers them. Naturally this means lower preferences are
a higher responsibility in Condorcet elections. This means you're giving
voters more power and that means they have to be more careful with that
power.

> >I'm still counting in the month election - 28 ballots so far.
>
> How many from EM?

I believe I have 8 or 9 approval month ballots from EM.

> >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".

I apologize, it is rude of me, and I'm thankful for your feedback and
others.

I'll try to look at it in the near future.

> 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.

I agree a Plurality ballot can be extracted from the IRV ballot.

Tom

----- Original Message -----
From: "MIKE OSSIPOFF" <nkklrp at hotmail.com>
To: <election-methods-list at eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: [EM] Bad Condorcet winners?


>
> >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