[EM] To James A., about Bucklin & ERIRV

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'd said:

>Approval & CR are the 2nd best, if we're talking about proposed methods. 
>Bucklin and ERBucklin(whole) are between Condorcet and Approval, in
>merit. But Bucklin & ERBucklin(whole) aren't proposed.

James A. replied:


	I'm not really concerned with the distinction between proposed and
non-proposed methods right now (but as far as that goes, I assume you know
that Bucklin has not only been proposed but actually used for public
elections in this country

I reply:

Here's what I said above: "But Bucklin & ERBucklin(whole) aren't proposed." 
I meant that they aren't proposed now. Sure, Bucklin was used in a number of 
U.S. cities during some part of the first half of the previous century.

You continued:

(and in one case struck down by a state supreme
court for failing later-no-harm!)).

I reply:

Can you back up that claim? Can you post the wording of the supreme court 
decision, their wording for why they ruled against Bucklin?

If you don't want a compromise to harm your favorite, then that rules out 
Plurality and IRV, where it can be necessary to vote the compromise over 
your favorite. You might reply that the rules of Plurality & IRV don't 
require you to do that. Likewise, the rules of Bucklin don't require you to 
extend your ranking any farther than you want to, and the rules of Approval 
don't require you to vote for any more candidates than you want to.

One silly thing about LNH, as I mentioned some time ago, is that what it 
protects is ranking someone below your favorite, even though the fact that 
you added your 2nd choice compromise to your ranking may never be counted by 
IRV. The majority defensive strategy criteria are about what you don't have 
to do in order to make sure that a "greater evil" doesn't win. Those 
criteria are an answer to widespread concerns about the lesser-of-2-evils 
problem.

When we speak of making your last choice (or some other "greater evil")  
lose, instead of just including a 2nd choice in your ranking, then IRV 
fails.

Using LNH is like praising a car that's up on blocks because it doesn't fail 
any safety tests. Just as IRV lets you rank your 2nd choice, the test car on 
blocks lets you start the engine and oiperate the controls. Ranking a 2nd 
chioce is often ignored by IRV, and that test car won't get you to work.

In Bucklin, but not in IRV, a majority can reliably make someone lose 
without reversing a preference, and, in fact, without even insincerely 
ranking 2 candidates at the same rank position.

You continued:

	But really, that aside, I would like to know how ERIRV, whole and
fractional, fit into your preference ordering of single winner methods.
Between ERIRV and approval, which do you believe to be superior, and why?

I reply:

I rate ERIRV below Approval. Approval meets WDSC & FBC. ERIRV meets WDSC, 
but fails FBC.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Check out MSN PC Safety & Security to help ensure your PC is protected and 
safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp