[EM] serious strategy problem in Condorcet, but not in IRV?

[Dave Ketchum]

OUCH - I got caught being careless again:



On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 23:55:22 -0400 James Green-Armytage wrote:

 > Dave, you write
 >
 >
 >>Just looking at the first example:
 >>     It starts with 44: B>A - they consider A to be better than C, and A
 >>wins - GREAT!
 >>     Then they switch to 44: B>C - they claim to prefer C over A, and C
 >>wins - ALSO GREAT!
 >>
 >
 > No, when they switch to B>C, B wins, not C, although C might win
 > eventually if the A voters respond in kind.
 >

Redoing my second assertion:
       Then they switch to 44: B>C - they claim to dislike A more than C,
and A loses - ALSO GREAT!  As a bonus they managed a win for B, but they
would have had no right to complain if they had managed a win for C,
considering their expressed dislike for A (and, what in real life would be
uncertainty as to exact vote counts to expect).

 >>
 >>    What is NOT GREAT is the propaganda claim that it is unfair for the
 >>voting method to honor their votes just because the propagandist asserts
 >>that their claim to prefer C was insincere.
 >>
 >
 > What do you mean, propaganda claim? I'm telling you straight out that
 > their votes *are* insincere. I gave the sincere preference rankings at the
 > beginning, and those don't change. They change their votes because it
 > benefits B, their sincere first choice. I agree that if they were being
 > sincere there wouldn't be a problem.
 >
 > These are my imaginary voters, I made them up, and so I will tell you when
 > they are being sincere or not. : )
 >

Ok, but if they do this in real voting they are into dangerous gambling,
for they could succeed in what they claim they want.


 > James

-- 
davek at clarityconnect.com  http://www.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
   Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
             Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                   If you want peace, work for justice.