[Election-Methods] RE : Re: RE : Re: Re: rcv ala tournament

Juho juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Dec 31 04:20:45 PST 2007

On Dec 31, 2007, at 9:51 , Dan Bishop wrote:

> Kevin Venzke wrote:

>> To my mind, the theory behind WV is that a contest is more  
>> decisive the
>> more people that participate in it. Only you mustn't count the  
>> voters on
>> the losing side, because they could then regret expressing their  
>> opinion
>> rather than indifference.
> This is where we disagree.  In my view, a unanimous contest with 30%
> turnout is more decisive than a 51%-49% contest with 60% turnout,
> despite the fact that the latter had more votes for the winner.

I also find the margins approach to be closer to ideal. The "theories  
behind" margins are typically more sincere voting oriented (e.g.  
"votes needed to become Condorcet winner") while WV theories tend to  
refer to reducing strategic voting.

A good method both 1) elects a good winner with sincere votes and 2)  
is not too vulnerable to strategies and does not encourage strategic  
voting. Condorcet methods are in general not very vulnerable to  
strategic voting. As a result one can put more weight on behaviour  
with sincere votes. Both margins and WV have some vulnerabilities to  
strategic voting but in typical large scale elections with  
independent decision making strategic voting may well be marginal and  
does not work.

My point is just that at some point the performance with sincere  
votes as well as ability to explain and visualize the results become  
more important than trying to find all the remaining theoretical  
strategic cases and trying to find treatment for them. At this point  
the changes may cause more harm (in other areas) than benefit (in the  
intended areas).


Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Yahoo! Mail - quick, easy and free. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/trueswitch2.html

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list