[EM] Does cycle-collapsing spoil MMPO's FBC compliance?

[Anthony Duff]

Hi Mike,

Your statements about insincere voting in Australia don't ring true
with me, and I know a lot of Australians.

Would you please share your information concerning Australians voting
insincerely.

I would have characterised Australian voters as taking seriously the
opportunity to express their true opinions regardless of any
potential for strategy.  For example, in the recent federal election,
in the seat of Wentworth, there was a widely publicised
three-way-contest.  The popular media seemed oblivious to any
strategy potential.  Some broadsheet opinion pieces noted that the
middle candidate needed to come second (not third) in first
preferences in order to win, but they failed to even explore the
possibility of labour voters (labour was the sure-loser of the three)
abanding their favourite to give the win to the middle candidate. 
Given your occassional statements that strategic voting occurs in
Australia, I was actively looking for evidence, but was unable to
find any.



--- MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> MMPO's FBC compliance somes from its stark simplicity and the fact
> that it 
> ignores who beats whom. But cycles are about who beats whom. Maybe
> FBC 
> compliance is as easy to lose as it is difficult to gain.
> 
> For me, those things suggest that it isn't obvious that
> cycle-collapsing 
> doesn't spoil MMPO's FBC compliance, but I don't claim to know one
> way or 
> the other.
> 
> If the cycle-collapsing does spoil the FBC compliance, then maybe
> FBC is 
> incompatible with ICC and MMC. If so, then I choose FBC over ICC
> and MMC, 
> just as I choose it over CC and Smith.
> 
> CC, Smith, ICC, and MMC aren't completely unrleated to strategy.
> They're 
> each about something that should be so if everyone votes sincerely.
> If 
> everyone votes sincerely? Good luck. The evidence so far suggests
> that in 
> public elections people are not inclined to vote sincerely. Even
> when 
> they're using a method (in Australia) that meets MMC and ICC. In
> fact 
> there's a tendency to deviate from sincerity in the most drastic
> way.
> 
> With the most timid, giveaway-prone lesser-of-2-evils voters, you
> must offer 
> them the strongest reassuring guarantee. A guarantee for them as an
> 
> individual, independent of how anyone else votes, a guarantee that
> they 
> won't have to do the most extreme form of giveaway voting, no
> matter what. 
> If there's anything that can reassure people to not bury their
> favorite, 
> it's FBC.
> 
> And when it comes with SFC, and (with AERLO)  SDSC and Strong FBC,
> so much 
> the better.
> 
> Mike Ossipoff
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today -
> it's FREE! 
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> 
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
> list info
> 


Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com