[EM] RE: Election-methods digest, Vol 1 #581 - 8 msgs

[James Gilmour]

> James Gilmour wrote:
> 
> Now consider:
> 49  A<C<B
> 48  B<C<A
>   3  C<B<A
> 
> IRV winner = B;  CW winner = C.
> 
> Mike replied:
> 
> You've used "<" where you meant ">".

Thanks, Mike, for pointing out my mistake.
The two examples should, of course, have been:

35  A>C>B
33  B>C>A
32  C>B>A
IRV winner = B;  CW winner = C

49  A>C>B
48  B>C>A
  3  C>B>A
IRV winner = B;  CW winner = C.

Incidentally  --
It is interesting that several others have commented on these examples without, apparently, "seeing"
these mistakes.  On my part, was it just 12 stupid typos, the effect of the ">" in the margin, or a
Freudian slip of much greater significance?
END of digression!

 
> You continued:
> I doubt very much whether most electors would accept C as the 
> "winner" if  this were an election for
> Sate Governor, much less for a directly elected President of 
> the USA.  If  anyone has evidence to the
> contrary I'd like very much to see it.
> 
> I reply:
> Ok, I'll give you evidence to the contrary: It's in your rankings.
> 
> 52 people prefer C to B. If B and C ran in a 2-candidate 
> election, then, 
> unless you believe that those people will vote against their 
> own preference  between those two, C will win, 52 to 48.

This is not evidence, just a restatement of what is the self-evident outcome of the Condorcet
election.  And it was not a 2-candidate election with only B and C.  What I am saying is that I
believe, based on my daily involvement with politicians, party activists, campaigners for voting
reform and campaigners against voting reform, that there will be a general reaction against the
result and the voting system when they see the CW outcome of the 49/48/3 vote.  They will understand
all the intellectual arguments for the CW, but in these particular circumstances, they will still
say "there is something wrong here"  -  "this result is not acceptable".  This is my interpretation
of the "intuitive responses" or "gut reactions" of those I encounter in practical politics.  I do
not have any attitudinal survey data to confirm my view; it is just my interpretation of the
political responses I have encountered.  But I should be very pleased to see any such data that show
my interpretation is wrong.  It would be very re-assuring to know that the Condorcet Winners would
be accepted in major public elections where those CWs had first preference support of only tiny
proportions of those who voted, just a few percent.

James