[EM] IRV vs Plurality (back to the pile count controversy)

[robert bristow-johnson]

On Jan 21, 2010, at 8:54 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

> At 05:17 PM 1/21/2010, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>   and i believe that it is perfectly
>> practical when the number of *credible* candidates is small.  doesn't
>> matter what the voting system is.  IRV, or whatever.
>
> Yes. But how small? Don't use the bogus numbers that aren't at all  
> realistic given real-world election rules,

<lotsa blather deleted and left unresponded>

being 54 and having voted in every prez election since Carter-Ford  
(and aware of the 1968 election with Wallace-Nixon-Humphery), i have  
never once seen a presidential election in the US that had more than  
two candidates with any chance of winning, and no more than three  
candidates of national salience.

so my bogus number is 3, maybe 4 at the most.  individual precincts  
could total 40 different virtual piles.  doesn't matter what the  
counting method is, those precinct summable pile tallies are  
sufficient to completely describe the election for those 4.

>
>>>>   for 3 candidates, that number is 9.
>>>
>>> Okay, three candidates, A, B, C, the ballot possibilities are, to
>>> be complete, much more than 9. I'll assume that write-ins are
>>> illegal and void the ballot. Some of the possibilities are legally
>>> equivalent to others, and in actual IRV ballot imaging, they are
>>> collapsed and reported the same, to the displeasure of voting
>>> security people who do want to know the "error rate," which
>>> includes overvoting and exact overvoting patterns. So-called ballot
>>> images are not, generally. They are processed data reducing a
>>> ballot to legally equivalent votes. The reduced set is this:
>>>
>>> A
>>> B
>>> C
>>> A>B
>>> A>C
>>> B>A
>>> B>C
>>> C>A
>>> C>B
>>>
>>> Note that this assumes a 2-rank ballot.
>>
>> no, it can be a 3-rank ballot where the voter declines to rate their
>> last choice.  "3rd choice" is left unmarked.
>
> I meant something a little different. I address the possibility of  
> a 3-rank ballot in the next section. The basic issue here is  
> whether or not the third rank is irrelevant or not. If it's  
> irrelevant, I claim, it's not really a three-rank ballot, it's got  
> two relevant ranks and one that means nothing. Why was it even there?
>

blather.  you said absolutely nothing of substance.

>>> It also assumes that majority vote isn't important.
>>
>> bullshit.  it (the number of consequential ballot permutations) has
>> nothing to do with it (whether or not majority vote is important).
>
> This is, in fact, serious ignorance. Bullshit, properly used,  
> allows things to grow. Consider where the growth lies here.
>
> If a majority is required, there is a difference in meaning between  
> B>C>A and B>C. I will assume the counting method described by  
> Robert's Rules of Order for preferential voting. 3 candidates
>
> Situation with truncated B vote:
> 35 A>B
> 34 B>C
> 31 C
>
> C eliminated, votes become
>
> 35 A>B
> 34 B
>
> Majority basis is 100. 51 votes are required to win. No majority, B  
> eliminated. I would guess that Robert doesn't consider this step  
> because he is used to thinking of plurality IRV, no majority  
> required, and the counting can stop with the last two in that case.  
> A would win.
>
> 35 A>B. A is plurality winner, no majority, election fails. Who  
> would be the runoff candidates? Under Robert's Rules, the question  
> is unanswerable and undeterminable from the first round results.  
> It's a new election. Under top two runoff rules, the rules were not  
> designed for a preferential ballot, but I'd suggest considering  
> *every IRV vote* as an approval, then pick the top two in that.

so you're making up rules to "prove" a point.  chapter 13, section 45  
of RONR (regarding preferential voting) have *no* consequential  
difference between marking the last preference last or deducing the  
same preference is last because it is the *only* one remaining unmarked.

there is no consequential difference between.

   35  A>B
   34  B>C
   31  C

and

   35  A>B
   34  B>C>A
   31  C

or

   35  A>B>C
   34  B>C>A
   31  C

end of discussion.


>  Pay attention, Robert, there is far more here than you imagine.

the problem for you is that i *am* paying attention.  you're wrong  
and, by examination, that fact that you're wrong becomes manifest.

the rest of the blather is deleted without comment.

people need to warned that, although you fancy yourself an expert,  
you are not.  you make things up.  they should just ignore you.


--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."