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

[Terry Bouricius]

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