[EM] Why Condorcet

[Dave Ketchum]

On Jul 8, 2010, at 1:28 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
> Sorry to be so wordy here.  There are 3 different issues (the number  
> of ranking levels and the value of ballot access criteria, procedure  
> if Write-In wins, and visual effectiveness of the "pairwise defeats  
> matrix") to respond to:
>
> On Jul 7, 2010, at 9:56 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 2010, at 11:31 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>> On Jul 6, 2010, at 9:31 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ballots:  Must support write-ins and, perhaps, 3 ranks (do not  
>>>> need to rank rejects and can do equal ranking).
>>>
>>> i think that the number of ranking levels should be as large as  
>>> the number of candidates (and there should be ballot access laws  
>>> that make it difficult enough to get on the ballot that no more  
>>> than maybe 5 candidates normally get on).
>>
>> Making getting on the ballot unreasonably difficult affects who  
>> gets to run, unreasonably - lets don't.
>
> there is a question about what is reasonable.

Sure - and debatable.  I would expect strong arguments against a  
number as small as 5 being an absolute limit.
>
>> No real need for a ranking level for every candidate.  Especially  
>> when there are many candidates voters will happily use some equal  
>> ranks and will not bother to rank those they see as not worth  
>> ranking.
>
> well, one of the complaints of the anti-IRVers (that applied more to  
> San Francisco and not to Burlington Vermont) was that, because the  
> number of candidates was much larger than the number of ranks, then  
> voters could not express a vote regarding every candidate.  if the  
> candidates that ended up leading the race (getting to the final and  
> semi-final rounds) were not any that the voter ranked (due partly to  
> the too few ranking levels), the claim was that this voter was  
> "disenfranchised".  i have her kill-filed, but i'm sure Kathy Dopp  
> can fill you in on what this sentiment is all about.  the funny  
> thing is that, while this "feature" of IRV (in SF) was a major  
> complaint of the IRV opponents, what the alternative offered (the  
> return to the affirmative vote for a single candidate and FPTP and/ 
> or delayed runoff) was even more so a "disenfranchisement" in that  
> very same manner.  it is equivalent to a ranked-order ballot but  
> with only one ranking level deep.

I started this thread to promote understanding and use of Condorcet.   
A big part of that is understanding IRV's limitations.

That anti-IRVers complained about limits on ranking is only a detail -  
that IRV inspires voters to want to rank more is part of that debate.
>
> also, sometimes a voter wants to bury a candidate.  how does one  
> vote negatively against a candidate when they cannot rank all the  
> other candidates above that one?  it's okay that all candidates not  
> ranked by a particular voters are tied for last place on their  
> ballots if that voter can lift all other candidates, not deemed the  
> absolute worst, above that level.
>
Another IRV topic.

> similarly to voter registration and ballot access to voters being a  
> political question, i think that ballot access to candidates is also  
> a political question.  reasonable people can disagree, but i see a  
> future with political parties to be inevitable.  it doesn't mean  
> that we should have only two viable parties nor that independent  
> candidates cannot credibly run for office.

Agreed.  Not clear to me why IRV was so limited, but Condorcet has no  
need for such limits.
>
>
> but any candidate that deserves the ink and real estate on the  
> ballot for their name, should be required to demonstrate some level  
> of electoral support to get there.  if the race is broad enough (a  
> national election in a large country), some candidate need not be on  
> the ballot for every state or district within that nation, if the  
> candidate cannot satisfy the qualifying threshold (in petition  
> signatures) for every district.  but whatever the size of the  
> election venue, be it a city ward, entire city, legislative  
> district, statewide, whatever, there should be a minimum number of  
> signatures required for ballot access that is approximately  
> proportional to the voter population of that venue.  that constant  
> of proportionality would have to be experimentally and empirically  
> determined, but it should be made high enough to reduce the  
> candidate field to about half dozen meaningful candidates.

Worthy debate, but I would expect strong arguments for more than a  
"half dozen".
>
> since that number would be fixed in law in advance of the race,  
> there could certainly be election flukes where many more candidates  
> satisfy the ballot access criteria and, in that case, the number of  
> ranking levels would be much less than the number of candidates, but  
> that would be a fluke.  if it turned out to become common, the  
> ballot access threshold should be raised by legislative action.
>
>>> i think Write-In can just be considered another candidate.
>>
>> Agreed each should be, and my way of counting provides for this.   
>> Counters can hear before election day of likely need.

What follows is debate about how to handle write-ins and how to format  
the N*N matrix for publication.
...