[EM] The Turkey problem (to Rob)

[Kevin Venzke]

Rob,

 --- Rob Lanphier <robla at robla.net> a écrit : > 
> Kevin,
> 
> You seem to be making the case that voters shouldn't express their 
> preferences between candidates they don't like.  I really disagree with 
> this premise.

???  Did you mean to address this to me?  I'm not sure how you got
this idea.

One of the main things I was arguing was that truncation doesn't benefit
the voter who does it (at least in cases where there is a CW).

I did say it was "commendable" to let other voters decide a pairwise
contest (if one's own preference is not so strong), but I certainly wouldn't
say they "should" do it, because the "commendable" people would have
less influence than the voters who strictly order everyone.  Condorcet
doesn't reward that kind of generosity.

> For example, let's say that among the candidates on the ballot, there's 
> a bumbling idiot, and a genocidal maniac.  I want to be able to make 
> sure that my preference for the bumbling idiot over the genocidal maniac 
> is recorded.

Good.  Now let's say there's a bumbling idiot A and a bumblinger idiot B.
You prefer the former, but not by much.  You potentially improve the
result of the election if, because you (and people like you) rank A=B,
people who strongly feel B>A are able to get B elected.  From your
own perspective, the B victory is not an improvement.

This won't likely happen in Condorcet, but with limited ranks, you have
to pick your battles, and not out of generosity.

I would note that an idiot could very well be the CW, even if everyone
knows he's an idiot.  Dave appeared to be saying that the idiot could
not possibly be the CW, because no one would bother to rank him over
anyone.

I hope I've been clearer.

Kevin Venzke
stepjak at yahoo.fr


___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com