[EM] IRV3/AV3

[David L Wetzell]

I believe there have to be only 3 candidates  and it has to be a close
3-way election for the 20% to be valid.
As long as the odds are low enuf, it doesn't matter that much.  It just
says that in some cases, some folks will have sour grapes.

And over time and place, such possible biases will get evened out...
Nonmonotonicity is no good reason to bring back the use of FPTP.
It was used for pragmatic reasons by those who were upset by how IRV was
improving the democracy of Burlington, VT.
dlw

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:

> It really depends. Real-world data suggests that it could be more common
> than that for partisan elections, and (much) less-common for primaries or
> nonpartisan elections.
>
> JQ
>
>
> 2011/11/1 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>
>> 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/b2b77da3/attachment-0004.htm>