[EM] Re: simplcity of range v condorcet

[Rob LeGrand]

Rob Lanphier wrote:
> In fairness, the specification for counting votes is something
> that voters will probably care about, and it is one of the
> biggest liabilities of Condorcet.  Part of the uphill battle for
> Condorcet advocates is to convince people that even if they don't
> understand exactly how it works, it's still a better system (the
> tactic I've usually advocated is endorsement from trusted smart
> people).

This tactic seems possibly dangerous to me.  There's a fine line
between asking the public to trust a decentralized network of
experts (open-source software, "mainstream" science: good) and
asking them to place their trust in a centralized "expert"
authority (governments, cult leaders: bad).  I think many people
can't tell the difference between the two and either trust both or
neither.  I'd prefer that a public election system be simple for
everyone to understand in the first place.

I think Warren Smith makes a good point when he says that many
voters would be tempted to use Borda-like strategy under a
Condorcet system, however effective it can be shown to be.  If my
sincere vote were A>B>C and C obviously had almost no chance to
win, I'd be very tempted to vote A>C>B to hurt B's chances.  And
under a winning-votes system I'd strategize by voting A=B>C even if
I knew nothing or expected it to be a close three-way race.
Following this intuitive Borda-style strategy under Approval or
Range Voting never requires expression of an insincere pairwise
preference.

--
Rob LeGrand, psephologist
rob at approvalvoting.org
Citizens for Approval Voting
http://www.approvalvoting.org/


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs