[EM] To Condorcetists:

[Michael Ossipoff]

On 05/13/2012 03:04 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:

> You're in deinal about Gibbard-Satterthwaite.
> You're in denial about Condorcet's blatant and full-magnitude 
> co-operation/defection problem.
> And you're in denial about millions of voters' need to litterally 
> maximally help the Democrat beat the Republican.

There are many ways to try to convince the people with whom you're debating
that they're mistaken. Calling them "in denial" is not one of them.

Now, I could lower myself to your level, but I'm not going to do that. I
*am* going to say, though, that this is not the kind of thing that makes me
want to invest time in writing replies to your posts. Please don't do it.

[endquote]

Telling someone that they're in denial about something has no perjorative
implication. I meant no offense by it. Condorcetists feel that they've found
something ideal, and they want to believe that. When you want to believe
something, it's tempting to overlook details that contradict what you want
to believe. 

As I said, I meant no offense. I don't use insults.

You continued:

Before you start claiming people are in denial, look at what you've written
yourself. More specifically, it looks rather bad when you, on the one hand,
say that C/D resistance is not incompatible with the Condorcet criterion

[endquote]

Smith-Top and Schwartz-Top meet CC and are defection-resistant.

You continued:

, then turn around and claim that "Condorcet has a blatant and
full-magnitude co-operation/defection problem"

[endquote]

Most Condorcetists don't advocate Smith-Top or Schwartz-Top. Most
Condorcetists advocate methods that are not defection-resistant. That was
what I meant.


You continue:

Before you talk about a *need* to literally maximally help the Democrat beat
the Republican, consider what you have said yourself, in response to my
posts. You have said that the voters' overcompromise is a result of their
history with Plurality, not an objective *need* to, within Condorcet,
rearrange the preferences or the worse guy will win.

[endquote]

Yes, history with Plurality has a lot to do with it. But there's nothing
objectively incorrect about what the Condorcet favorite-burier believes.
S/he believes that s/he can't maximally help Dem beat Repub, without ranking
Dem alone at top. She's right.

Admittedly, the chance of having reason to regret not voting Dem alone at
top is quite small. S/he doesn't care. Hir need to _literally_ maximally
help Dem beat Repub is genuinely felt, and no one can find something
objectively wrong with it. 

In fact, what would _you_ do under the following circumstances:

It's a u/a election. Favorite and Compromise are the only acceptables. Most
likely, Compromise is surely or almost surely only candidate who can beat
Worse, an unacceptable.

What are you going to do, in Condorcet?  Hah! You'll vote Compromise alone
in 1st place, just as I would.

Yes, I've said that I wouldn't favorite-bury in Condorcet. Ok, I was
mistaken.  Of course we might not know for sure that the conditions are
right for requiring favorite-burial. If it isn't certain which acceptable
can win, then it can be best to vote them all at top. It depends on what
information you have. No one said that Condorcet voting is simple. Or at
least _I_ didn't.

The voter has to _dither_ about whether, in that u/a Condorcet election,
it's optimal to vote Compromise alone in 1st place, or to vote all of the
acceptables together in 1st place. There are rough ways to try to guess
which kind of situation it is. But knowing for sure?....

Not a problem in Approval. Just approve (only) all of the acceptables.

Undeniably, unquestionably, Condorcet is much worse than Approval in a u/a
election. 


You continue:

And finally, I'd give this hint: the moment it feels like the "other side"
has somehow acquired a preponderance of people in denial

[endquote]

It's hardly rare for a majority to be wrong. It's common. You shouldn't use
polls as the ultimate arbiter of correctness.

I've pointed out that any particular configuration of advocacy on EM is but
a snapshot of something that is constantly changing.

I've pointed out that Approval won the most recent EM poll on voting
systems. Approval won by every method that we counted. Approval was the CW,
the Approval winner, and the Range winner.

In the published Declaration-signers list, Approval has more mention than
does Condorcet, even if you count VoteFair as Condorcet.

In fact, one of the mentions of Condorcet specifically ranks it below
Approval.

Mike Ossipoff