[EM] James doesn't think people will favorite-bury in Condorcet

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

I read that message because it was a new subject, and because I didn't think 
it was a contentious subject. Then, because the posting was short, and 
because the statements were being made for the first time, I felt that they 
rate one reply. Replying to this doesn't mean that I'll reply to additional 
postings from James with this subject-line. A nice thing about my new policy 
is how much it reduces the time-consumingness of my EM participation, and 
avoids the task of replying to the same statements again and again. I don' t 
know about you, but I was getting tired of that. I'm sure that you (not you, 
James) were too.

James says:

To summarize the critique:

I reply:

Why do you use the pretentous word "critique"?

James continues:

If there is widespread compromising-reversal
behavior in methods with very frequent/intense compromising-reversal
incentive (such as plurality and nER-IRV), that doesn't necessarily mean
that there will be widespread compromising-reversal behavior in methods
with minimal compromising-reversal incentive (such as SD(wv) and
beatpath(wv)).

I comment:

Australians have told me that people's reason for favorite-burial in 
Australian IRV elections is _not_ because they know IRV's need for that. It 
is, they say, instead because people are using Plurality strategy. They 
don't know that a rank method can make Plurality's lesser-of-2-evils 
strategy unnecessary. That's what Australians have told me is the reason why 
people favorite-bury in IRV.

I shouldn't start repeating things for you again, but I observed that 
behavior with someone voting in a BeatpathWinner election. Though I said 
that I wouldn't favorite-bury with that method, and it isn't really 
necessary, the person did it anyway, ranking all of the Democrats over their 
favorite. But I didn't assure that person that there couldn't possibly be 
any gain from favorite-burial, because that guarantee couldn't be made for 
BeatpathWinner.

James continues:

Hence, Mike has not demonstrated that the difference
between zero compromising-reversal incentive and minimal
compromising-reversal incentive is a very major benefit

I comment:

The benefit is that it's possible to give to the voter an absolute guarantee 
that they don't need to bury their favorite to protect a 1st-ranked 
candidate. An absolute guarantee that can be emphasized to the voter. An 
absolute guarantee that can't be given to the IRV voters in Australia, and 
that couldn't be given to that favortie-burying voter in that BeatpathWinner 
Internet poll.

James continues:

, capable of
outweighing concerns such as Condorcet, Smith, MMC, CL, etc.

I comment:

...whatever that means. These voters who bury their favorite do so because 
they believe they need to. Emphatically assuring them that there's 
absolutely no need to, to protect a 1st-ranked candidate, will reassure them 
that they don't need to, if anything can.

You forgot to explain why you think that compliance with Condorcet, Smith, 
MMC, or CL will reassure people to not favorite-bury better than FBC will. 
If a method meets Condorcete, Smith, MMC or CL, will you be able to use that 
to absolutely guarantee to a voter that burying their favorite couldn't 
possibly improve the chances of their 1st-ranked lesser-evil? Though I won't 
display your reply, I nevertheless suggest that you consider before 
answering that question.

Or maybe you're talking about completely different concerns, and aren't 
talking about favorite-burial.  But then you're changing the subject, 
because favorite-burial was what I was talking about.

When voters are so afraid, timid, demoralized and resigned that they think 
they need to bury their favorite, it isn't entirely clear what will be 
gained by Condorcet, Smith, MMC, or CL. Answer that if you want to, but I'm 
just telling you that you won't be answering it for me, because I won't 
display any more of your postings with this subject-line.

It seemed worth answering this--once. But that's it for this subject line. I 
won't read more re-assertion from you about this.

As I said, I've made my participation on EM easier and much less 
time-consuming.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/