[EM] IRV in San Francisco
davek at clarityconnect.com
Tue Nov 16 18:51:26 PST 2004
Still not into alphabet soup, seems to me what I wrote here deserves more
response as to Nader. The 35 Nader backers:
Are strong enough to dream of winning - therefore voting Nader
first, just in case.
Hate Bush - therefore voting him last.
Like what Condorcet does - agreeing with them that Kerry should win
for being liked better than Bush.
See IRV, treating Nader as a spoiler, failing to declare Kerry the
The words below bother me:
Seems like what afflicts IRV here is properly called a spoiler.
Condorcet spoiler problems, if any, therefore differ from IRV's.
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:47:26 -0500 I wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:06:23 -0500 Eric Gorr wrote:
>> At 7:44 AM -0800 11/12/04, Justin Sampson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Eric Gorr wrote:
>>> > Well, it will cause IRV to fail the Independence of Clones
>>> Criterion and
>>>> thereby be subject to a spoiler effect again.
>>> Doesn't IRV suffer from spoiler effects anyway?
>> The method itself passes the ICC, so spoilers cannot come from there.
>> It, of course, fails IIA (as all ranked ballot methods do), so
>> spoilers in this context still exist. Of course, since no ranked
>> ballot methods pass IIA, talking about spoilers in this context is not
>> very interesting.
>> Are there more directions from which spoilers can appear?
>> I am currently not aware of any.
> I do not keep up with the alphabet soup, but IRV and Condorcet disagree as
> to winner in the following, and I see Nader as a spoiler for IRV:
> 40 Bush
> 35 Nader, Kerry
> 25 Kerry
> Condorcet sees 35 Nader as ignorable and then 60 Kerry vs 40 Bush
> IRV discards 25 Kerry; then sees 40 Bush vs 35 Nader.
davek at clarityconnect.com people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
More information about the Election-Methods