[EM] Comments on MJ discussion

[Michael Ossipoff]

> Removing a losing candidate from the ballots and from the election,
> and then re-counting the ballots, shouldn't change the winner.
>
> Approval and Score pass.
>

Michael, I find it very inconsistent for you to argue so adamantly for
voters to use maximal strategy

[endquote]

I was just saying that there's no reason to expect people to vote
other than optimally, based on their perceptions. A voting system
shouldn't be promoted based on an assumption of suboptimal voting.

You continued:

and then to use a criterion that doesn't
allow them to adjust their ballot when one candidate is dropped.

[endquote]

Suppose we held an election, and the Democrat won, and right after the
election the Republican said "I want to retroactively withdraw from
the election. Let's pretend that I hadn't been in the election. I want
you to conduct another balloting, without me in the election."

For one thing, of course s/he wouldn't do that. And, if s/he did, we
could reasonably say, "Well, you should have thought of that sooner,
shouldn't you."

But, at least in that instance, another election would be fine with
me, because a lot of progressives would vote Green instead of
Democrat.

But I can't say that a withdrawer has a right to insist on a new
election. Of course s/he certainly has a right to advocate one, and
circulate initiative petitions calling for an up/down vote on holding
a new election.

But that isn't really the issue of IIAC.

IIAC merely says that removal of a losing candidate shouldn't change
the result.

IIAC says nothing about whether there should be another election if a
losing candidate calls for one without hir in it..

IIAC is merely about consistent count-mechanics, given an unchanging
set of ballots.

Mike Ossipoff






If voters even do so much as re-normalize their ballot when a losing
candidate is dropped, that can ruin independence of irrelevant alternatives.