[EM] IRV vs Plurality

[robert bristow-johnson]

oops.  forgot to finish a sentence.

On Jan 14, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote:

> We know that we can't have a system with all the properties that we  
> might independently desire. Consequently, we compare systems  
> overall, looking not just at their list of properties met and  
> unmet, but at the implications for voter behavior, nomination,  
> campaigns, and so on.
>
> Those implications have been widely discussed on this list, and I  
> won't try to repeat those discussions. Suffice it to say that to  
> elevate a single criterion, CW or LNH or other, to the sole  
> criterion by which we judge methods just doesn't cut it.

with a single winner election (like mayor or some other executive, or  
a single representative), the elected candidate should be considered  
"better" or "superior" to every other, any other, candidate propped  
up against him/her.  if it's not about democracy, then we can think  
up other tests of merit, like a written civil-service like exam.  or  
age or years of experience.  or we could get Machiavellian about it  
and give it to the candidate with more guns and fighters.  or we  
could have them arm wrestle or throw darts.  but, i cannot imagine,  
in a democracy, a criterion for "better" other than preferred by more  
voters than voters who prefer the other candidate.

with the arbitrary assumption pleasing the majority is better than  
pleasing the minority, i don't understand what other arbitrary value  
trumps that of electing the Condorcet winner if such exists.   
pathologies can happen in a cycle, but, as i have wondered aloud here  
before, i wonder how often it would really happen for a Condorcet  
cycle to occur in real elections.

simply, if a Condorcet winner exists, and your election authority  
elevates to office someone else, that elected person is rejected by a  
majority of the electorate.  what other democratic value papers over  
that flaw?  LNH?  monotonicity?

like the popular vote is the gold standard we use to judge how well  
the Electoral College does, it seems to me that the Condocet  
criterion is the gold standard to use to judge how well some other  
method works.  in both cases it seems logical to ditch the  
"experimental" method and just use the gold standard.

--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."