[EM] 06/11/02 - FWD of Mike Saari's letter:

[Donald E Davison]

06/11/02 - FWD of Mike Saari's letter:

  ------------- 1 of 2 Forwarded Letters ------------
From: Saari at aol.com
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 18:20:22 EDT
Subject: Re: 06/05/02a - An Advanced Variant of An Established Election Method:
To: donald at mich.com

I note an "incorrect" outcome that results from an extremely simple situation
with only two candidates - nearly all proposed voting systems (including
every known "ranked" voting system) are susceptible to this problem.

Assume two candidates, "A" and "C".
Candidate "C" is well-liked by 100% of the voting population. - the honest
opinion of each voter regarding this candidate
(using a subjective scale ---, --, -, 0, +, ++, +++) is "++" or "very good".
Candidate "A" is even better-liked by 60% of the population - their honest
rating of this candidate is "+++" or "excellent".
But the other 40% honestly rate candidate "A" as "--" or "awful".

In other words,
                A           C
     60%     excellent   verygood
     40%     awful       verygood

Under most voting systems (including all "ranked" voting systems), 60% of the
voters choose "A" and 40% choose "C".

"A" wins 60-40, and 40% of the group is pissed.

If "C" had been chosen as the winner by a given system, all of the voters
would have been pretty satisfied even though many didn't get their top choice.

I claim that any voting system which chooses "A" in this situation is broken
and should be discarded as unsuitable for the "best overall good".  This is
one of my three "Litmus Tests" for a rational group decision method.

What do you think?  Do you agree that your system chooses "A" in this
situation?  And do you agree that it's the poorer outcome?

Mike


 -------------- 2 of 2 Forwarded Letters -------------
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 05:42:31 -0400
To: Saari at aol.com
From: donald at mich.com (Donald E Davison)
Subject: 06/08/02 - Sixty Percent is Considered a Landslide:

Dear Mike,

Thank you for writing - (I think?).

If I understand you correctly, you would discard the following single-seat
election methods: Plurality, IRVing, Condorcet, and Bucklin, all
methods which regards any candidate as the winner that receives fifty
percent plus one on the count of the first choices.
(Borda too would elect candidate A in your example.)

If Approval Voting is your method of choice, it may not be the choice of
the sixty group.  Those voters may not equate `verygood' as being equal to
`excellent' and have no desire to vote 60 AC.  If so, I agree and I don't
see them voting 60 AC.  I say they will `bullet vote' 60 A.

`The more things change, the more they remain the same.'  The forty group
will also `bullet vote', which reduces your election down to a Plurality
election, not exactly what you are wishing for.

Don't worry about the forty group being `pissed', they'll get over it.
After all, we are not electing a King who can say `off with their heads'.
We are electing a mayor or a governor or a president, all of which are
supposed to obey the laws, not make laws off the top of their heads.
    This talk of `off with their heads' reminds me of a tale about some
famous French politician who was asked what did he do during the `Reign of
Terror'.   He replied: "I kept my head."  Which was more than many were
able to do.

Forty group should keep their head, it's not going to be that bad.  They
should be more concerned about who makes the laws, how we are going to
elect them, and how are we going to control them.  We need a bit more
Direct Democracy, but I digress, you are not asking me about Direct
Democracy.

You ask what I think about your conclusions.  I think you should be willing
to accept some `finish line' to the election race.  Almost everyone is
willing to accept fifty percent plus one, but if you have some better
`finish line', with a rational, then let's hear it.
   In other words, what exactly are you wishing for?

The system I advocate for single-seat elections is IRVing and I do agree
that IRVing will elect candidate A in your example.

I do not agree that this is a poor outcome, winning with sixty percent is
considered to be a `landslide' in most circles.

Besides, any candidate with at least fifty percent plus one on the first
count, is the `Condorcet Winner'.

Alterego: `What in the hell does that mean?'

`That's a joke son.' if I may quote W.C. Fields.




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 -                              |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
    APV   Approval Voting
    ATV   Alternative Vote  aka  IRV Instant Runoff Voting  aka  IRVing
    FPTP  First Past The Post  aka  Plurality
    NOTA  None of the Above  aka  RON Re-Open Nominations
    STV   Single Transferable Vote  aka  Choice Voting  aka  Hare-Clark
          aka  Preference Voting  aka  Hare Preferential Voting

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