[EM] FYI: Tacoma park IRV vote data

[Juho Laatu]

--- On Wed, 15/4/09, Jonathan Lundell <jlundell at pobox.com> wrote:

> I think it's easy enough to phrase IRV voting instructions
> in terms of contingency, though I don't think it's
> particularly harmful for voters to think of their ballot as
> a simple preference ordering, because the likelihood that a
> voter will have sufficient information to make it worthwhile
> to vote strategically is vanishingly small, at least in real
> public elections.

I think there are situations that are not
rare and where voters will have a clear
incentive to vote strategically in IRV.
Here's one example from a one-dimensional
opinion space.

45: A>B>C
20: B>A>C
05: B>C>A
30: C>B>A

I think some of the C supporters should
vote B>C>A to guarantee (or increase the
probability) that B will win instead of
A.

I think the voters will have sufficient
information if there are few reasonably
reliable polls available shortly before
the election. The example could quite
well be from some real public election.

Juho