[EM] Bad Condorcet winners?

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Tom wrote:

>We're in agreement here - voters shouldn't just vote a centrist because he
>"seems" more like one's favorite. The more powerful a polar opposite seems,
>the greater the pull to support the compromise as the better chance, but
>this needs resisting if the compromise choice sucks.

True as regards how you're going to vote in 2004. Irrelevant for
choosing a voting system, because, no matter how people should vote,
we know how they do vote.


>
>These dilemmas show where Condorcet is more demanding on voters than IRV.
>IRV will never look at second choices for voters of A and C.

What? How does that make IRV less demanding? When IRV ignores your
preference for Gore over Bush, because you sincerely voted Nader
1st, and your Gore>Bush vote never gets counted because your traveling vote 
hadn't reached Gore in time to save him from elimination--how do you call 
that less demanding?

Tom, you IRVies have it backwards. It's because you don't listen.
So I'm going to explain it to you again.

The whole purpose of rank balloting is so that you can help a compromise. 
You or I may have no respect for that compromise, and
no intention of helping him. Irrelevant. Most people desperately need
to help the compromise. In case they might need him, it's important
to them to help him against a greater evil.

Condorcet automatically lets the lesser-of-2-evils progressive fully
protect Gore against Bush, fully oppose Bush, without any insincere
voting. And that's what you call more demanding. IRV will often make
it necessary for that voter to insincerely rank Gore in 1st place, over
Nader, in order to keep Bush from winnning. And that's what you call
less demanding.

>
>I believe in Condorcet process only given voter think well about lower
>choices

If people don't care about their lesser choices, then no one,
including you IRVies, has reason to propose rank balloting.

We need Condorcet or Approval partly because so many progressive voters
who dislike the Democrats  "think well" enough about them to dump
their favorite in order to help the Democrat, just as they'll often
have to with IRV.

, or bullet vote if they're unsure what they really want. I'd rather
>voters be conservative than vote haphazardly on lower ranks.

When progressives vote conservatively & cautiously, they help a
lesser-evil, at any cost to their favorite. I don't know what you
mean by "vote haphazardly". Rank sincerely?


>Ranking many
>choices sincerely is a great responsibility!

Nonsense. Sincere ranking is the easiest and least demanding form
of voting. That's the advantage of Condorcet. Condorcet is the method
that, under plausible conditions, is free of need for strategy.

You want responsibility? Be the person who calculates strategy for IRV.
I don't know that anyone has waded into that problem yet. It would
be horrendously complicated.

Mike Ossipoff


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