[EM] 12/13/02 - Giving `crutches to weak candidates':

[Donald E Davison]

12/12/02 - Giving `crutches to weak candidates':

Greetings Alex and EM list members,

Alex, you wrote: "Healthy competition does NOT include giving crutches to
weak candidates..."

This is something we agree on, but if you truly believe this, then why are
you supporting Condorcet and/or Approval Voting?  For, this is what these
two method do, they give `crutches to weak candidates'.

Alex: "...but it does include removing incentives for a candidate to avoid
votes, e.g. non-monotonicity."

Donald: Non-monotonicity is a bad joke, it does not exist, it has never
happened in a real election, it only happens in extreme examples concocted
by the Charlatans.

Irving has been in use for over eighty years in real election in the real
world and not once has there been an election in which one of the
Charlatans' extreme examples occured.  Can you say the same for Approval
Voting?  The ball's in the court of the Charlatans to prove that
non-monotonicity has ever influenced an Irving election, they have eighty
years of Irving experience to draw from.

A few months ago I posted some real ballots to this list and requested
anyone to use the ballots and prove that Irving or STV can be
non-monotonicity in the real world.  No one responded.


The Great Thinker, Tom Ruen, wrote: "I support IRV over Approval because it
best protects voters from themselves."

Most voters do not need to make lower choices.  In an Irving election, this
will not matter because only one choice at a time will be charged with a
vote, but in Condorcet and Approval elections, these lower choices will be
`pity votes'.  The voters need to learn not to make `pity votes'.  It is
best to use an election method in which `pity votes' will have little
effect.

Any success that weak candidates may hope to have over strong candidates
will depend on `pity votes' received by the weak candidates.  The
Charlatans know that if voters are given more votes then some voters will
foolishly make the mistake of handing out `pity votes' and maybe these
`pity votes' will make the difference in winning an election for the
Charlatans' weak candidate.  It is proper for a jurisdiction to select a
method that will protect votes from themselves, from their own `pity
votes'.  That method is Irving.

Pity votes will have little influence in an Irving election, but the bad
effects of `pity votes' can easily happen in the two methods, Condorcet and
Approval.  Anyone is a fraud who tries to promote these two dubious methods
because they are attempting to trick the voters into making valuable `pity
votes' - valuable to the supporters of the weak candidates.  Fraud is the
word that defines a Charlatan.  So, if you don't wish to be called a
Charlatan, then don't be one.





Regards,
   Donald Davison, host of New Democracy at http://www.mich.com/~donald
                        Candidate Election Methods
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |                        Q U O T A T I O N                          |
   |  "Democracy is a beautiful thing,                                 |
   |        except that part about letting just any old yokel vote."   |
   |                           - Age 10 -                              |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

         Please be advised that sending email to me allows me to
         quote from it and/or forward the entire email to others.






















----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em