[EM] Meta-criteria 9 of 9: Conclusion

[Jameson Quinn]

2010/5/7 Juho <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk>

> On May 7, 2010, at 6:40 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
> 2010/5/7 Juho <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk>
>
>
> My intent was to propose a nonbinding poll which would be conducted on the
> same ballots as, and thus simultaneously with, the actual election. Any
> valid vote would be interpreted as an answer in the poll, but this answer
> could be overridden by the voter, either to add subtlety, or effectively to
> say what part of the actual vote was strategic. This proposal flows from the
> realization that expressivity and outcome utility are separate values, and
> that forcing them together sometimes brings them into conflict.
>
> I understand that some might argue that this proposal would hurt
> legitimacy. What if the election winner was not the poll winner? Personally,
> I'd argue that if this is true, it's better to know it. Either way, the
> society would get a better understanding of the true legitimacy of the
> winners. With a good system, disagreements would be rare, and so legitimacy
> overall would increase; and when they occurred, they could be an important,
> though symbolic, check on the mandate of a winner who's true legitimacy is
> weak.
>
>
> One could claim that TTR is a better system than IRV since TTR collects
> less information and therefore there is less basis for complaining about
> strange end results (e.g. not electing the Condorcet winner). :-)
>
>
I'm sorry... are you seriously arguing this, or doing a reductio ad
absurdum? I'm too thick right now to tell. And I don't want to offend you by
responding to the wrong intent.

JQ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20100507/1b6cb420/attachment-0004.htm>