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

[Eric Gorr]

At 11:49 AM -0400 8/18/03, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:58:57 -0400 Eric Gorr wrote:
>
>>  At 10:45 AM -0400 8/18/03, James Green-Armytage wrote:
>>
>>>  Perhaps the best thing we could do, if we wanted to use Condorcet on a
>>>  public level would be to make sure that conspiring to such violently
>>>  strategic voting would be a matter of political shame, or even illegal.
>>
>>
>>  Yes, it seems to me that such things are a clear case of fraud.
>>
>Shame - fine - and it can be worded to apply only to those who are guilty.
>
>Illegal - tempting, BUT
>       B's backers can claim a legitimate goal - A is the worst enemy, so
>they should do their best to help A lose.
>
>       A's backers can claim a similar goal - B and C are equally good/bad,
>so they should be neutral as to B vs C.

A legitimate goal can never involve the subversion of voting process.

>How do you prove legal guilt without reading minds?  Unless you eavesdrop
>on their strategy session and hear an admission?

By relying on the only thing that has ever mattered - the desire of 
people to do the right thing regardless - when it comes to voting, 
that would be to provide a sincere vote.

When that desire is gone, the voting system won't matter.

As for proof...as long as you have people who believe the process is 
a good one, you will have people who will come forward.

-- 
== Eric Gorr ========= http://www.ericgorr.net ========= ICQ:9293199 ===
"Therefore the considerations of the intelligent always include both
benefit and harm." - Sun Tzu
== Insults, like violence, are the last refuge of the incompetent... ===