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

[robert bristow-johnson]

On Jan 21, 2010, at 8:58 PM, Terry Bouricius wrote:

> Kathy,
>
> I ask that you stop smearing me on this (and other) discussion lists.

"rots o' ruk."

> 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."


Terry, you may have read that i take some responsibility for also  
associating Wright as the spoiler by replacing "almost no chance of  
winning" to "having lost" in the definition.  and i know that they  
are not the same thing.

strictly speaking, Kurt Wright was not a spoiler because it is  
uncontroversial whether or not he had a chance of winning.

that said, i believe that a spoiler-lite (a candidate who loses and  
whose presence in an election changes who the winner is) problem is  
still a problem.  i think, in these parts, we call it "Independence  
of irrelevant alternatives".  IIA is "spoiler-lite" even if it is not  
always the spoiler scenario.

--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."