[EM] I need an example of Condorcet method being subjected

[Terry Bouricius]

Kathy,

Arrow never uses the word "spoiler" in his theorem (original nor revised 
version). You may be thinking about his independence of irrelevant 
alternatives (IIA) criterion. While this could be expanded to have some 
bearing on the concept of "spoilers," it is not the same thing. Firstly, 
Arrow used IIA (as well as Pareto consistency and non-dictatorship) as 
desirable characteristics of a social ranking of options, not finding a 
single winner (or winning set). having a vote processing algorithm ignore 
rankings of "irrelevant" options, is not the same as ignoring non-winning 
options. Arrow himself gave examples of irrelevant options such as, an 
option that was not available at all (such as instantaneous teleportation, 
when establishing a social ordering of transportation options), or in the 
case of an election, a person who was not a candidate at all, or a 
candidate who died between the time ballots are cast, and tallied. While 
some election method experts may choose to give a broader interpretation 
of IIA by including "non-winning" candidates, Kathy, don't claim validity 
by pretending to cite Arrow for your non-standard definition of "spoiler," 
which he never used.

Terry Bouricius

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kathy Dopp" <kathy.dopp at gmail.com>
To: "Terry Bouricius" <terryb at burlingtontelecom.net>
Cc: <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: [EM] I need an example of Condorcet method being subjected


Start telling the truth about IRV at Fairytale Vote, and then when
people speak the truth about Fairytale Vote, it won't sound like a
"smear".

If you don't like the sound of your own behavior when retold, try some
different behavior, rather than falsely accusing others of "smearing"
you when they tell the truth. The list of deliberate misinformation
told by the Fairytale Vote group, if put together in one place, would
reach to the moon most likely, as this one youtube video alludes to.
Experts in election methods have had occasions to debunk the
disinformation by Fairytale Vote sufficiently to know that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPCS-zWuel8

So continue to alter the definitions of commonly used words in order
to make yourself "right" because that's the only way you can do that
Terry.

Your definition of "spoiler" alters the definition that was given by
Arrow's theorem which is the one I choose to use, not the narrower one
your organization uses in order to make the false claim that IRV
solves the spoiler problem even though it obviously does not, and the
Republican candidate acted as a spoiler to knock out the most popular
Democratic candidate so that their least favorite, the left wing
Progressive could win.

Terry, just do not imagine that people do not see the "trick" you use
of redefining words that have had a common meaning for decades.

Cheers,
Kathy



On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Terry Bouricius
<terryb at burlingtontelecom.net> wrote:
> Kathy,
>
> I ask that you stop smearing me on this (and other) discussion lists. I
> did not alter any standard definition of "spoilers." Webster's online 
> for
> example defines it as:
> "1. A candidate with no chance of winning but who may draw enough votes 
> to
> prevent one of the leading candidates from winning."
>
>
> This means a spoiler is a non-leading candidate with almost no chance of
> winning (I think the term "minor" is a fair way of stating that 
> concisely)
> and not "one of the leading candidates." Note also that the concept of
> having a "chance" to win suggests the term can be applied prospectively,
> prior to knowing what the ballots reveal. Kurt Wright, being perceived 
> as
> a likely winners and who was in first place in the initial tally had an
> EXCELLENT chance of winning, and almost did in the runoff, and thus does
> not meet the standard definition of a "spoiler."
>
> I will refrain from the "majority" discussion, as that is off topic.
>
> Terry Bouricius
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kathy Dopp" <kathy.dopp at gmail.com>
> To: <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 4:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [EM] I need an example of Condorcet method being subjected
>
>
>> From: "Terry Bouricius" <terryb at burlingtontelecom.net>
>> To: "Jonathan Lundell" <jlundell at pobox.com>, "Juho"
>> <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk>
>>
>> Jonathan makes an important point. The term "spoiler" means a minor
>> candidate with a small percentage of the vote, who changes which of the
>> other candidates wins by running. But Kathy and some others wish to
>> expand
>> the definition to include a front-runner. (Note that these IRV 
>> opponents
>> refer to the top plurality vote-getter who narrowly lost the runoff in
>> Burlington, Kurt Wright, as a "spoiler" who prevented the candidate in
>> third place from winning. This is a dynamic worthy of analysis, but the
>> word "spoiler" is never used by the media or political scientists when
>> describing the plurality leader.
>>
>> Terry Bouricius
>>
>
> Thanks for all the information re. Condorcet cycles and the unlikely
> cases of spoilers in Condorcet method of counting rank choice votes
> from Juho and Robert.
>
>
> Terry, You cleverly conveniently change all the definitions whenver it
> is necessary to make yourself and Fairytale Vote right on the "facts".
> Let's see what some of them are:
>
> A spoiler is *not* according to you, a nonwinning candidate whose
> presence in the election changes who would otherwise be the winner,
> but only a particular type of spoiler that is "a minor candidate".
>
> A majority of voters is *not* according to you, a majority out of all
> voters who cast ballots, but only out of voters whose ballots have not
> been exhausted by the time the final IRV counting round is done.
>
> A majority candidate, according to you, is *not* the Condorcet winner
> who a majority (and indeed the most#) of voters favor above all other
> candidates, but only a candidate who wins a majority in round one, or
> in the final IRV counting round out of unexhausted ballots after the
> Condorcet winner and other more majority-favorite winners are
> eliminated.
>
> Terry, redefine any word you want to and you make yourself right, even
> if most people do not agree with your definitions. It's a good
> strategy to mislead the public like Fairytale Vote has done.
>
> Kathy
> --
>
> Kathy Dopp
>
> Town of Colonie, NY 12304
> phone 518-952-4030
> cell 518-505-0220
>
> http://utahcountvotes.org
> http://electionmathematics.org
> http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/
>
> Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting
> http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf
>
> Voters Have Reason to Worry
> http://utahcountvotes.org/UT/UtahCountVotes-ThadHall-Response.pdf
>
> Checking election outcome accuracy --- Post-election audit sampling
> http://electionmathematics.org/em-audits/US/PEAuditSamplingMethods.pdf
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list 
> info
>
>



-- 

Kathy Dopp

Town of Colonie, NY 12304
phone 518-952-4030
cell 518-505-0220

http://utahcountvotes.org
http://electionmathematics.org
http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/

Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting
http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf

Voters Have Reason to Worry
http://utahcountvotes.org/UT/UtahCountVotes-ThadHall-Response.pdf

Checking election outcome accuracy --- Post-election audit sampling
http://electionmathematics.org/em-audits/US/PEAuditSamplingMethods.pdf