[EM] Real IRV Election, Disputable Result

[Eric Gorr]

James Gilmour wrote:
> Eric Gorr Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 1:31 PM
>> James Gilmour wrote:
>>> Jan Kok Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 4:07 AM
>>>> Yes, I agree that the election rules affect how people vote.
>>>> But, unsophisticated IRV supporters are not aware that there 
>>>> can be incentives to vote insincerely in IRV elections, or 
>>>> may believe that IRV and Condorcet will always, or almost 
>>>> always, choose the same winner.  If we can find a 
>>>> counterexample (even if somewhat flawed because the ballots 
>>>> were intended to be counted by IRV and not Condorcet), it may 
>>>> wake up some IRV supporters and get them to at least 
>>>> question, "If these two methods can get different results, 
>>>> which method gives the better result?"
>>  > The answer to this question, for most electors, will 
>> almost  > certainly be context dependent.  Suppose we have a 
>> Condorcet  > winner who is not the IRV winner, because that 
>> candidate is  > placed third in first preference votes but is 
>> "everyone's  > second choice".  If that CW is only a little 
>> way behind the two  > front-runners (35%, 34%, 31%), the CW 
>> would probably be  > politically acceptable to most electors. 
>>  But if that CW has  > very little first preference support 
>> compared to the two  > front-runners (48%, 47%, 5%), I 
>> suspect the CW would not be  > politically acceptable to most 
>> electors.  I can see merits in  > both IRV and Condorcet, but 
>> this is a practical aspect of  > voting reform that very few 
>> advocates of Condorcet methods have  > attempted to address.
>>
>> Your entire argument is based on one assumption after 
>> another, so I will respond in kind.
> 
> From your tone, I gather you reject or dispute whatever assumptions you think 
> you can see in what I wrote.

You are welcome to support your assertion that the CW would not be 
politically acceptable to most electors in most (all?) cases where it 
received only second place votes.

Of course, you used the word 'suspect', which makes your statement an 
assumption. If you wish to continue to deny this fact, you are welcome 
to, but that won't turn you into a credible person.

>> If everyone's first choice would lead to Civil War, but everyone's 
>> second choice is the compromise that would avoid it, then it is at least
>> possible that everyone would accept the result rather then die.
> 
 > In this extreme case, you MAY be right.  But sadly, recent and
 > current examples from around the world provide evidence to the
 > contrary as the factions tear each other and their countries
 > apart rather than accept any compromise.

Of course.

But, like I said, it was merely an assumption on my part and I used the 
wiggle words 'at least possible', which makes my statements inherently 
indisputable and just as useless as yours.