[EM] The Coming California Single Seat Election

[Adam Tarr]

I think we're all in agreement that this is a purely academic issue, and 
cyclic individual rankings are a bad idea in practice, but anyway...

At 05:57 PM 8/19/2003 -0700, Forest Simmons wrote:

>On the first issue you like A's stance, B is in the middle, and you detest
>C's stance.
>
>On the second issue you like B's stance, C is in the middle, and you hate
>A's stance.
>
>On the third issue you like C's stance, A is in the middle, and you hate
>B's stance.
>
>So far nothing unusual or insane, right?

Certainly.  It makes sense.

>If it came to a choice between A and B, you could say, "I like A's stance
>better than B's on the first and third issues; that's two out of three, so
>rather than try to compare apples to oranges, I'll go with A."
>
>If it came to a choice between B and C, you might say, "I like B's stance
>better than C's on the first and second issues; that's two out of three,
>so I'll take B."
>
>If it came to a choice between C and A, you might say, "I like C's stance
>better than A's on the second and third issues;  I'll go with the two out
>of three winner, C."

As you allude to later, this is really a bit of sophistry.  This really 
only works if our brains work like Copeland, which they don't.  In reality, 
we attach an importance to each position in our minds, based on our own 
position, the positions of the candidates, and the importance of the issue 
to us.

>I could counter (in a Borda vein) by saying (for example) that although B
>does better than C on two out of three issues, C does much better than B
>on that third issue, so they are really tied because they have the same
>average rank.

This seems like it should only apply in special cases where things balance 
just so.

>But in order to admit that you have to be willing to compare apples to
>oranges, (for example) by swallowing Borda, or (for another example) by
>assigning utilities to each candidate's stance on each issue, a total of
>nine utilities.

Why does assigning utilities mean I'm comparing apples to oranges?  Surely, 
I can allow that voters HAVE utility assignments for candidates, even if 
the voting system does not allow them to express them.

>If we require that of a voter, then we might as well require them to fill
>out utility ballots.

That seems like a leap to me.  Not that I think cardinal rankings are bad, 
because they're not.

>For the sake of those just tuning in to this thread, I'm not saying that
>it is desirable to allow the voter to express a cyclic preference,

I think we all agree there...

>I'm
>just saying that such a preference pattern is not necessarily a
>manifestation of irrationality, and that some voters might rationally
>prefer the option of expressing the cycle over the hard work of assigning
>utilities (or whatever it takes) to come up with a linear ranking of the
>candidates.

Ultimately, I think it is irrational.  If one can think clearly about all 
the issues at once, individual preferences become transitive.

-Adam