[EM] education of voters

[Warren Smith]

>Robla: I think your studies show that instituting a Condorcet method means that
the accompanying education effort should be vigorous.  It means warning
people, "hey, if you try any funny stuff, you're likely to get burnt".
But part of what makes democracy is that people learn enough to govern
themselves as part of the process.

--REPLY BY WDS:
I think this is a very crazy and wrongheaded idea.
Heck, if we just "educated" voters about plurality voting and told them
"hey, by voting strategically you are burning us with 2-party domination",
think they'd all stop being strategic?  I think not.

It is complete stupidity to advocate a voting system in which voters
need to be educated, perhaps by experiencing a few self-created disasters
or (in the case of plruality) a permanent ongoing disaster.

The correct approach is to advocate a system they can use without being educated,
whose behavior is comparatively predictable and comprehensible,
and whose reaction to having a lot of strategic voters, is a mild reaction,
as opposed to anaphalactic shock.  

All Condorcet methods (and many other ranked ballot methods, e.g Borda)
have a maximally-severe allergic reaction to strategic voting
in a very-common situation I call DH3 ("dark horse + 3").
I.e. 3 near-equal good rival candidates, and 1 or more "dark horses" nobody really
wants.  With strategic voting a dark horse is always elected.

Plurality, range, and IRV are all immune to DH3.
wds