[EM] Real IRV Election, Disputable Result

Eric Gorr eric at ericgorr.net
Mon Mar 13 07:52:09 PST 2006

Quoting James Gilmour <jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk>:

> 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.
>> 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.

Sorry...needed to add:

Furthermore, given my assumption, my direct response would be that in these
recent and current examples it is at least possible there has yet to be a
compromise that would be everyone's second choice, allowing them to pick
something more acceptable then death.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list