[EM] Burlington 2009 -- analysis + responses to attacks by IRVpropagandists

[Raph Frank]

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Warren Smith <warren.wds at gmail.com> wrote:
> I know Abd and some other don't like to think that Bucklin led to a
> sharp reduction in second choice rankings, but it did.

That seems reasonable.  In Bucklin, anyone who you rank is effectively
approved.  In other ranked methods, it is perfectly reasonable to rank
right down to last rank (and in the case of later no harm compliant
methods, there is no negative effect in doing so).

> If you halve
> the second choice rankings on ballots cast for each candidate as a
> first choice, Wright wins. With the kind of passion you had in this
> race in the Wright and Kiss camps, with their backers much preferring
> their person then settling on a Democrat, you would have seen a huge
> increase in bullet voting. But even a 50% increase quite likely would
> have done it -- and I think that's a conservative estimate.

If the voters cared that much to do this, then that is a range-like effect.

Ironically, range may given more weight to "core vote" than something
like condorcet.

> With range, the Kiss and Wright backers would have been maxing out on
> their guy and almost certainly giving very little to anyone else.

They might have given the "centre" candidate some ratings.  Ofc, range
allows them to give the centre candidate a partial vote, which
approval doesn't.

> I think approval/range only elects Montroll in this kind of situation
> if backers of other candidates have more fear of the most hated
> opponent than hope to get their favorite in. The most passionate
> voters in Burlington were Kiss and Wright backers, particuiarly living
> in a state and city where the Democrats are the dominant party and you
> need to grab your chances to win when you have them.

Right, if you think your candidate has a chance to get a direct
majority, bullet voting is perfectly reasonable.

The  theory is that it allows 3rd parties to grow in strength.