[EM] Comments on some rank methods

[robert bristow-johnson]

On 4/14/12 5:13 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> On 04/10/2012 10:20 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/09/2012 11:31 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
>>>>  I've said seemingly contradictory things about IRV. It's particularly
>>>>  flagrant FBC failure makes it entirely inadequate for
>>>>  public political elections, more so than Condorcet, which, too, is
>>>>  inadequate due to FBC failure.
>>>
>>> You keep saying anything without FBC is automatically a no-go. How do
>>> you know that?
>>
>> [endquote]
>>
>> It is a country-specific observation, regarding the electorate of the 
>> U.S., where I
>> reside. I don't know that about any other country, though there is 
>> evidence for it in various
>> countries where people are used to Plurality voting.
>>
>> Yes this is "anecdotal", but I've personally observed favorite-burial 
>> in Condorcet voting.
>>
>> A safe and prudent rule is "Never underestimate the voter's 
>> inclination for resigned over-compromising
>> give-away, if there's any chance that it could help a compromise 
>> against someone worse."
>
> Yet that isn't absolute. Again, consider Burlington. The Burlington 
> voters, thinking they could now vote as they wished, ranked the 
> candidates in a manner suggesting a relatively close race between the 
> three major candidates. They didn't discover this was a bad idea until 
> after the election, but a Condorcet method would have given them the 
> right winner.
>
what you say is true.  the CW would be, IMO, the "right winner" and in 
*some* ways would have been perceived to be more acceptable to the GOP 
voters, *but* if we had Condorcet in 2009, they would have complained 
that the "3rd place" candidate had won.  but the Democrats would have 
shut up (since it was their candidate who would have won with Condorcet).

there is, IMO, a general dishonesty in the GOP that exists for 
self-serving purposes, and as long as they had the fig-leaf that their 
candidate won the plurality of 1st-choice votes ("Keep voting simple.  
The guy with the most votes wins."), they would have complained as 
loudly about Condorcet, even though they would have been less 
dissatisfied with the Democrat winning than they were with the Prog.  
bujt the Dems nor the Progs would have joined them in any repeal attempt 
and Condorcet (if we had it instead of IRV) would have survived a repeal 
effort.

-- 

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."