[EM] IRV's "majority winner". What if we let the people choose?

[James Gilmour]

> James Gilmour wrote:
> >49  A<C<B
> >48  B<C<A
> >  3  C<B<A
> [and expressed doubts about whether the public would accept a 
> voting system that chose C as the winner]
> 
> What I see here is a highly polarized electorate.  The 
> A-first voters place B last, and vice versa.  Both A-first 
> and B-first voters consider C to be better than the other 
> alternative.  That's exactly what they said on their ballots!

Agreed.
 
> Personally, if I was an A or a B voter, I would not have a 
> problem with C being chosen as the winner.

OK, but I was not talking about YOU.  I am quite prepared to believe that many on this list either
would have no problem with the CW in these extreme circumstances or would be prepared to accept that
outcome while feeling a little uncomfortable.

> I would address 
> those who objected as follows: Would you rather we chose 
> between A and B with a coin toss?  There are some who might 
> take that gamble, but I suspect most would grudgingly settle 
> for the compromise candidate.

This is a very rational appeal, but I would predict a different response: "We reject the Condorcet
voting system but will accept IRV to avoid this problem."  I think voters would respond this way
because their rejection of the low first-vote CW is stronger (much stronger ?) than their concern
that IRV defeats the high-first vote compromise candidate who is everyone's second choice.

 
> James G. was groping for a way to describe C using some other 
> "dimension." 

I may have been groping (and still am), but it wasn't for a dimension on which to describe candidate
C.  Rather it was for the dimension on which to measure the voters' "unfairness" response that would
lead voters to reject the CW in the example election.

> In this case, I would suggest that "political 
> experience" or "visibility" or "viability" might be ways to 
> describe the dimension or issue.  That dimension could 
> explain why there are so few centrist voters voting for C.

I don't think candidate "political experience" or "visibility" are on that dimension, but
"viability" of the result might well be as one aspect of the intuitive "it's unfair" / "there's
something 'wrong' with this result" response.

James