[EM] "good method" ? was "IRV ballot pile count (proof of closed form)"

[Dave Ketchum]

Clearly there has been a lack of clarity in this thread.  While others  
may have made the mess you joined in, seems like you might have stated  
your objections more clearly.

 From "IRV ballot pile" and previous discussion of such piles, the  
subject is IRV, a method that has rules.

Then there was a post that assumed Condorcet, since the description of  
what happened fitted Condorcet rules, but that post said nothing about  
switching rules.

Then you objected.  Per the above you had cause, but your words about  
"voters' minds" led to continuing trouble.

On Feb 15, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
> <abd at lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
>
>>> I seem to be one of the few people on this list who recognizes  
>>> that I
>>> don't read voters' minds and cannot convert one vote-type to another
>>> for voters.
>>
>> Kathy, there was no reading of voter's minds. What was expressed  
>> was the
>> votes themselves. Not the voter's internal, unexpressed preferences.

He was right about minds - the problem was ambiguity as to what rules  
applied - a detail that neither of you pointed at.
>
>>
>>> For example, in the above example, by:
>>>
>>>>>> 35:A
>>>
>>> Some voters if they chose to rank further might have meant:
>>>
>>> A>B=C

This is what they DID mean in Condorcet, assuming exactly three  
candidates.  Adding D, similar thinking would lead to A>B=C=D while  
A>B=C>D would mean the same as A>B=C.

Clearly we are not in IRV, which does not use "=".
>>>
>>> or they might have wanted:
>>>
>>> A>C>B
>>> or
>>> A>B>C
>>
>> Whether they "wanted" that or not, they did not vote that. It's like
>> Plurality, with three candidates, A, B, and C:
>>
>> 35:A
>>
>> is exactly the same as
>>
>> 35:A>B=C.

Except that this latter, while implied in Plurality, cannot be  
expressed that way in Plurality.
>
>
> It most certainly is **not** the same.
>
> Again if individual **voters** are allowed to describe what they
> really meant, the voters could have meant any of the following if they
> were forced to fully rank and I would bet that it would be a
> freakishly rare occurence for all voters to agree with your
> interpretation when voters could have ranked any of the following ways
> if forced to fully rank:
>
>>> A>B=C
>>> or they might have wanted:
>>>
>>> A>C>B
>>> or
>>> A>B>C
>>
>
> When someone votes simply
>
> A
>
> What they really mean is A over all other candidates running.  I.e.  
> voters mean
> A> B and A> C and A>D etc.  which may *not* certainly be the same
> thing at all as
> A>B=C=D  in the voters' minds.
>
> It changes the results, depending on the counting method if you assume
> that the voter meant > 35:A>B=C. rather than one of the other
> possibilities that can translate the voters' true meaning of A> B and
> A> C and A>D etc. that may've been the voter's choices if they were
> forced to fully rank.
>
> I doubt that all voters understand how you are going to define their
> ballots, out of all the possible ways, in cases of voters not fully
> ranking.
>
> This seems to be yet another case of removing voters' rights to decide
> for them what they meant in some methods of counting RCVs.
>
> Kathy