[EM] Dave on approval, ranked ballots

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 10:16 PM 7/27/2005, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>Ok, we are debating the meaning of words, and I am getting a headache:

my condolences.... may your explanations not be a burden to you.

>In the IRV example IRV clearly ignores the 27 votes for Nader for they are 
>masked by the 27 for Buchanan.
>
>In the Condorcet examples all of the voters assertions get considered, 
>though some are too minor to affect the result.
>
>Kevin says the label "ignore" applies to both actions; I do not see that, 
>but the dictionary does not clearly back me.

If an action does not affect the outcome, it could certainly be said to be 
ignored. However, any single-winner system necessarily "ignores" some 
votes. So we would properly use a qualified meaning: that a vote is ignored 
would mean that it is given no effect in the final outcome of the election, 
presumably in some single pairwise consideration.

In IRV, as well as in Condorcet, by this definition, no votes are ignored 
unless the voter truncates. In Plurality and in Approval, votes not for one 
of the top two vote-getters can properly be said to have been ignored. They 
do not affect the outcome, even if these votes are actually a majority of 
votes cast (collectively).

There is one system that does not ignore votes at all, that is, every vote 
counts, and that is Delegable Proxy. In a proportional representation 
system, also, Asset Voting, potentially, does not ignore votes. The only 
way that votes are ignored in any substantial numbers in Asset Voting would 
be if the candidate receiving the votes does not exercise them and does not 
receive sufficient votes from another candidate to win. Strictly speaking, 
though, the vote was not ignored. Rather, the election was inconclusive (a 
seat would be vacant, unless the rules provided a means to fill the seat 
with less than the quota, which I would recommend against, precisely to 
discourage intransigency on the part of candidates).