[EM] IRV3/AV3

[David L Wetzell]

Not as much if there are only 3 candidates, according to Stephen Brams, a
mathematician determined that in a close 3-way election with only 3
candidates that the odds of non-monotonicity mattering would be 20%.
 That's still 4-1 in favor of it not mattering  and close 3-way elections
are not common.

dlw

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> 2011/10/31 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Andy Jennings <
>> elections at jenningsstory.com> wrote:
>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> My strongest feeling about your recently proposed system is that the
>>> "three" is so arbitrary.
>>>
>>> What if there are eight candidates running, and I really like five of
>>> them?  Then approving three might not be enough.
>>>
>>
>> Most people aren't as politically keen as you are.  We need to design
>> rules for the typical voter, not ourselves.  I think the number of
>> contested seats plus two is a good rule of thumb...
>>
>>
>>> I know you said that real elections only seem to have four strong
>>> candidates, but the current republican primary seems to have at least seven
>>> totally legitimate candidates in the race.
>>>
>>
>> define totally legit?  From a wonk perspective or a hack perspective?
>>  There's three realistic candidates right now, and a bunch of me
>> threes/fours/what-nots
>> .
>>
>>> Both 2008 primaries were the same way.  Sure, the press is constantly
>>> trying to whittle it down to about four.  But why should we let the press
>>> do the whittling?  Shouldn't that be done by the voting system in some way?
>>>  Should we use a different system for these larger elections?
>>>
>>
>> dlw:  It's not just a media thing, it's also a matter of cost-benefit
>> analysis.  When there's only one winner, it just isn't cost-effective for
>> there to be lots and lots of candidates.
>>
>> My point is based on reality as it is, not as I'd like it to be.  We need
>> to gear our reforms to reality, not our wishful thinking about how
>> elections ought to be...
>>
>>>
>>> If there are only three candidates running, then the AV step does
>>> nothing.  If there are four candidates running, then the AV step is really
>>> anti-plurality.
>>>
>>
>> dlw: I'm saying that there can be more than three or four candidates on
>> the ballot, but there tends to be 3 or 4 serious candidates by virtue of
>> economics of elections.  ..
>>
>>>
>>> And as Kathy pointed out, you'd still better tell people that it's not
>>> safe to put their favorite first.
>>>
>>
>> dlw: That'd be silly.  If you do the math, while it's possible that there
>> could be a non-monotonicity problem in the unlikely event of a close three
>> way election, it's still less likely than the more typical outcome where it
>> makes sense to vote your preferences.  And so long as the odds favor the
>> typical outcome, the possibility of a sour grapes situation are not
>> consequential.  It does not rationally change voter behavior.
>>
>
> In nonpartisan/monopartisan elections, including party primaries, there is
> unlikely to be a nonmonotonicity problem. In partisan elections where
> more-or-less one-dimensional spectra are the norm, nonmonotonicity is a
> very real threat.
>
> JQ
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111101/4101bfad/attachment-0004.htm>