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

[Jonathan Lundell]

On Jan 22, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Kathy Dopp wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Jonathan Lundell <jlundell at pobox.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Arrow never used, never mind defined, the word "spoiler".
>> 
> 
> 
> That is true. Back in Arrow's day,

"Back in Arrow's day"? Like, um, today?

> the word spoiler was not used, but
> Arrow exactly and broadly describes the spoiler condition as one of
> his fairness criteria.  

Arrow defines IIA precisely. 

"Spoiler", on the other hand, is a word in casual English defined, as are most such words, by its usage, which is generally a candidate with little or no chance of winning who affects the outcome negatively relative to their supporters' preferences--a restricted, somewhat fuzzy, subset of IIA violations.


> Study this to understand and was easy to find
> using google on "Arrow's Fairness Criteria"
> 
> http://www.ctl.ua.edu/math103/Voting/whatdowe.htm#The%20Independence%20of%20Irrelevant%20Alternatives%20Criterion
> 
> This reminds me of one of the plethora of other deliberately
> misleading claims of Fairytale Vote

Stop. You're killing me. 

> , they constantly cite Arrow's
> theorem as if that is a logical reason to support IRV when IRV fails
> more of Arrow's Fairness criteria than even plurality voting does
> because IRV fails the nonmonotoncity criteria in addition to the
> spoiler criteria described above which both IRV and plurality fail.
> 
> Fairytale Vote might be able to fool some of the people all the time,
> but cannot fool all of the people all of the time like it would like
> to.  Fairytale Vote redefines the spoiler condition to be only
> spoilers (nonwinning candidates whose presence in the election change
> who would otherwise win) who have small support among voters --
> another very clever trick on their part to mislead the public into
> thinking that IRV is an improvement over plurality, even though it is
> much much worse and deprives voters of fundamental fairness and voting
> rights and eviscerates the ability of the public to oversee the
> integrity and accuracy of election outcomes.