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

[Curt Siffert]

Not to defend IRV, but I agree with James on this count.  If a thin 
majority preferred B to A, but then found after the election that A 
received many first place votes, while B received hardly any, I'd bet 
money that some people would switch their votes from B to A, possibly 
enough to swing the results.

I followed the Dem primary pretty closely and there were a *lot* of 
voters that were voting for Kerry even though they liked Dean better - 
not for tactical reasons, but simply because it was the thing to do.

I know that it doesn't make sense and isn't rational, but the point is 
that people are irrational.  And while that doesn't mean that awarding 
the winner to the Condorcet Winner is flawed (of course it's not 
flawed), there are still weird cases like this one where it could be a 
public relations problem.  People are used to first place counting for 
more than second or third place, and it would be an uphill battle to 
convince an unsophisticated population that B is the rightful winner.

It's not a reason to support IRV, but it's definitely reason to try and 
include safeguards so an outcome like this wouldn't happen.

On May 18, 2004, at 7:53 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

>
> James Gilmour said:
>
> But if you did decide this by a separate run-off election, I should 
> not be surprised to find large
> numbers of voters changing their preferences in that run-off election, 
> and in so doing, reject the
> CW.
>
> I reply:
>
> Why should they change their preference, James? So that IRV's winner 
> will win? If you prefer C to B, and that's why you ranked C over B, 
> you're making a ridiculous claim if you say that you're now going to 
> start liking B better than C.
>
> You continued:
>
> Imagine a "real-life" scenario: Bush, Gore, Nader.  Would we really 
> have had four years of
> President Nader?
>
> I reply:
>
> Yes we would, if 52% prefer Nader to Gore Bush, and 48 prefer Bush to 
> Nader, and we held a runoff between Bush and Nader, for a presidential 
> election. Then yes, James, we'd have had at least 4 or 8 years of 
> President Nader.
>
> You continued:
>
> This is about more than voting arithmetic and measures for identifying 
> "the most
> representative candidate".  It brings in systems of values which are 
> expressed in different
> dimensions from those used to measure representivity.
>
> I reply:
>
> I have no idea what you're talkling about. Perhaps your "system of 
> values" happens to coincide with the definition of IRV? :-)
>
> Mike Ossipoff
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Best Restaurant Giveaway Ever! Vote for your favorites for a chance to 
> win $1 million! http://local.msn.com/special/giveaway.asp
>
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list 
> info
>