[EM] To Demorep, re: Monotonicity

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Demorep wrote:

Prof. Amy in his recent book has this to say in regard to possible
nonmonotonic results using IRV--

[...]

While it is clear that nonmontonicity can theoretically occur in an IRV
election, most experts believe that the conditions required for this paradox
to occur are so special that it would be an extremely rare occurrence.*

I reply:

The estimate that I ran across was that it those situations would exist in 
about
5% of elections. But IRVie Doug is missing the point. Even if it only 
happens  5% of
the time, do we really want a voting system that, without a doubt, will 
sometimes
respond oppositely to a voter changing his intention about how to vote, due, 
perhaps
to new information that's become available.

Brams published an example that shows that the following scenario is 
possible with
IRV:

As the election draws near, a certain candidate is going to lose, based on 
how people
intend to vote. If you want something more concrete, let's say that the 
polls show that
he's going to lose.

But then his Nazi past is made public, and some people who'd previously 
ranked him
in 1st place move him to last place. Because those people moved him from 1st 
to last
place,  he wins.

He wins because people found out that he was a Nazi, and didn't want him.

How democratic is that? How democratic is a method that could act in that 
way?

Demorep continues:

Complain/ explain to Prof Amy and not me.

No, it would serve no purpose to write to Amy. But you posted it, and I'm 
replying to
what you posted.

Mike Ossipoff



_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com