[EM] Fwd[ To Martin on bad consequences ]

[Martin Harper]

Martin Harper wrote:

> Example of consequence two:
> 
> A,B,C,D, in that order on the ballot paper.
> 
> Sincere Votes and votes under margins:
> 10 B>A=C=D
> 10 C>A=B=D
> 10 D>A=B=C
> 
> Actual Votes under wv:
> 10 B>A>C>D OR B>A>D>C OR B>A(>C=D)
> 10 C>A>B>D OR etc
> 10 D>A>B>C OR etc
> 
> Result: A is the wv condorcet winner, despite being hated by everyone. 
> Margins would give a draw to B,C,D.
> 
> Hence, winning-votes fails my newly invented Universally Despised 
> Candidate Criterion, which makes it even worse than IRV's failure of 
> Mike's Universally Unprefferred Candidate Criterion. Here A is hated, 
> and hated by *everyone*, yet still gets elected.
> 
> Mike Comments: A is so much hated by everyone that they all consider him 
> a 2nd choice and rank him alone in 2nd place [:-)]
> 
> In a real election, B,C, or D voters would estimate which of those
> is the biggest rival, and try to him lose to the other 2 of {B,C,D}.
> No, I haven't checked that out, because this example has just now
> been posted, but at first glance it seems likely. That removes that
> candidate from the tie, and improves your chance of your favorite
> winning in the tie.
> 
> "Hated by _everyone_", who consider A a sincere 2nd choice, and
> rank A alone in 2nd place  [:-)]

They all sincerely rate him second, yes - second and last. In case 
anyone has for gotten, I'm a utility person: A has a sincere utility of 
zero for all voters. And I note that the example doesn't have to be 
0-info to work, either.

Thay all rank A alone in second place in their actual votes. Yes: that's 
because their randomisers are rubbish - approximately 2% random. A was 
at the top of the ballot paper, so must people did the randomisation by 
doing top-middle-bottom or top-bottom-middle.