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

[Eric Gorr]

At 1:19 PM -0400 8/18/03, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>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"?

Voting sincerely is always in the interest of an individual. For in a 
collection of people, it is the group preference that is important. 
If enough individuals are not prepared to accept a legitimate loss, 
the voting system will not matter.

Only in those cases of dictatorships, etc. do pure individual 
interests become more important.




-- 
== 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... ===