[EM] language/framing quibble

[rob brown]

On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <
km-elmet at broadpark.no> wrote:

> Consider Condorcet. One of the greater problems with plurality is
> vote-splitting, which favors minorities since it destroys a center that many
> think is good but only a few think is great. Thus, adopting Condorcet would
> help the majority, not minorities at the expense of the majority, ...
>

First, I think you are misusing the words "majority" and "minority" here (as
is common).  Personally I think they have no meaning unless there are only
two candidates (and there were never any other potential candidates).

I would argue that Condorcet (vs. plurality) helps "minorities", or rather,
people on the extremes.

Say you have a dozen candidates, spread equally along the continuum from
"right" to "left".  A block of voters on the extreme left might, under
plurality, vote for an extreme left candidate.  Their votes are effectively
wasted.

That same block of voters under Condorcet would likely change the outcome in
their favor....true, they wouldn't elect an extreme left candidate, but
their votes may well cause a "more left" candidate to be elected.  In other
words, it will pull it in their direction by an appropriate amount.

Although real elections are not one dimensional like that*, I would suggest
that the the effect holds true.

* (unless the vote happens to be for a number, such as a budget....in which
case selecting the median preferred value is roughly equivalent to holding a
Condorcet vote on an infinite number of "candidate values")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20080901/ad5e5064/attachment-0003.htm>