[EM] Draft of CVD analysis about IRV vs. Condorcet Voting

[Ken Taylor]

James wrote:
> However, there is no question that the strategic possibility is there,
> and so I think that your note is unfortunately quite wrong. If after
> reading my August posting you no longer hold to your earlier statement, I
> would suggest that you send another e-mail to CVD to concede the point.

I may have worded my response to the article too strongly. However, your
example, reposted here:

46: A>B
44: B>C (instead of B>A)
5: C>A
5: C>B

does not show what I wrote to be "quite wrong." In fact, it basically
demonstrates my point that "At best, this insincere ranking will create a
cycle in the result -- and then the strategic advantage depends on the
cycle-breaking method." The only point I was incorrect on was stating
parenthetically that SSD with magnitude dropping was immune to this
strategy -- as your counterexample shows, it is not. However, other methods
can be used to resolve the cyclic anomalies which are immune to this
strategy. The original article even suggested using IRV in these cases,
which is immune to this particular strategy. Therefore, under the
assumptions of the original article, this strategic problem *doesn't* exist
with condorcet, and I do not have to concede my point. I will write another
email to the author of that article noting that my parenthetical statement
about SSD was incorrect, however.

(A question for other readers of electionmethods: are there better cycle
breaking systems than SSD which are more immune to strategy?)

> I have to say that if you send them e-mails touting faulty arguments,
you're
> making Condorcet supporters look bad. I've read the CVD e-mail, and there
> are effective counter-arguments to it, but that's not one of them. I wish
> that Condorcet didn't have that strategy problem, but it does. Please,
> let's not dismiss the CVD people as a bunch of idiots or villains. I agree
> that it's an awkward situation where they control the lions share of the
> public attention and donation resources toward voting methods reform and
> yet are kind of lazy when it comes to voting methods theory. However, in
> this case they have taken at least a little bit of time to think about it,
> and many of their arguments are relatively sound, so just blindly bashing
> at them is unfair and unproductive. I'm sure you meant well, and I'm sorry
> to come down on you, but let's look before we leap, okay?

I find this entire section of your message to be quite inappropriate. It is
riddled with incorrect assumptions about me and is quite patronizing.. I
don't represent, and don't claim to represent, "Condorcet supporters" as a
whole. I don't make them "look bad" simply because I made a small factual
error in my argument. I don't dismiss CVD as "idiots" or "villians" -- in
fact, my email to the author (of which I only reproduced a small part here)
was intended to help him improve his article before publishing -- he even
wrote back to me stating that my comments were helpful and that he'd
probably implement some of my suggestions. I am not "blindly bashing" them,
and I have "looked" before I "leaped." In fact, it may even suprise you to
learn that I actually *support* IRV and *applaud* CVD's efforts on the
political front. I believe condorcet is a better system overall, but I am
not a member of this supposed "CVD is evil" zealot crowd.

Please, refrain from making such presumptions about people in the future. Or
at least refrain from commenting on such presumptions, and instead
concentrate on the *arguments* that are actually made.

Ken