[EM] IRV vs Plurality

[Juho]

On Jan 10, 2010, at 10:23 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

>
> On Jan 10, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
>
>> This is a point that bears repeating, since it doesn't seem to sink  
>> in. It's much to easy to casually assume that ballots cast under  
>> one system (in this case IRV) can be recounted under some other  
>> rule with the assumption that voters would have cast the same (or  
>> at least equivalent) ballots under that other rule.
>
> but i think that it is reasonable to "casually" assume that the  
> ranked-order ballots marked for IRV would, for the most part, be the  
> same if the election were to be decided by Condorcet rules.  that,  
> plus the Freedom of Information laws, allows us to say what would  
> have happened with Condorcet rules.  the tabulation rules are  
> different, but the ballots are the same.

I believe the voters would have voted in the same way in Condorcet.  
That is because they did not understand how IRV works nor how  
Condorcet works (or at least they didn't understand what strategic  
opportunities there are). They were told that in IRV you just rank the  
candidates sincerely, and that's what they probably did. I have not  
heard of any (IRV specific) strategic advices that would have been  
given to the voters before the election.

So I believe the votes were quite sincere rankings. In the next IRV  
election things might be a bit different.

Juho


>
> --
>
> r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
>
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for  
> list info