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

[Dave Ketchum]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:21:19 -0400 Eric Gorr wrote:

> 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 did we get into subversion, other than basing this on voting against 
their own interests, which was claimed via the label "insincere"?

The goals I state above are legitimate.  Look at:
      Greens in 2000 WANTED Nader to win, though this occurring was fantasy.
      Greens in 2000 WANTED Bush to lose.
      With Plurality they could not express both desires.
      With ranked ballots they could have voted Nader>Gore>Bush.

> 
>> 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.


And there are people who will do the wrong thing and lie about it.  Take 
this to court and the big result may be headaches.

I like Condorcet because it is better than IRV at honoring what voters say 
with their votes.  This should be the best route to discouraging insincere 
votes.

> 
> 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.

-- 
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.