[EM] to Donald (re David's message)

[Kevin Venzke]

Donald,

 --- Donald Davison <donald at mich.com> a écrit : > 
> David and EM list,
> 
> David, you wrote: "Take the simplified example:
> 
> 49 A>B
> 3B
> 48 C>B
> 
> For B to win in this situation she/he must have a minimum utility of 0.92 to
> A>B voters and a minimum utility of 0.96 to C>B voters. To win B has to be
> highly liked (approved?) by everybody."
> 
> 
> Donald here:  If B was highly liked, B would receive more first choices,
> like twenty or thirty, but in your example B only receives three, which
> means B is not highly liked.  A more realist example would be:

In David's method, the voters actually indicate how much they like each 
candidate.  (Whether that would work well is a different question.)  So if
every voter said they were over 90% happy with B, B certainly can be called
"highly liked."

Without that information it is not possible to say whether B is "highly liked."

> 
> The major party voters care as little for candidate B as they do for the
> other major candidate.  Note: the three B voters would make second choices,
> it's anyone guess as to what those second choices will be.

The B voters won't make second choices if they think B will win.

> Donald:  No No David!  Debate or no debate, the voters of A and C are going
> to stone wall and hold their position and why not, their most preferred
> candidae is close to victory, all he needs is two or three points.  No,
> instead of electing B, the A and C voters will expect B to withdraw.  They
> will wait for that to happen and/or for the B voters to change their votes
> (regardless if B withdraws).

B won't withdraw if he can win.  If the C voters stonewall and let A win,
when they were 90%+ happy with B, the C voters are idiots.

Donald, why don't you ever reply to my responses?  Haven't I said anything
worth disagreeing with?  What do you think of Runoff Without Elimination,
or Approval-Elimination Runoff?

Will you comment on which criteria are important to you?  The "ESBS standard"
seems to require that the method be phrasable as a runoff, but I think
"later-no-harm" is what you really meant by it.

Kevin Venzke
stepjak at yahoo.fr


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