[EM] Fwd: Is it professional?

[Benjamin Grant]

Let me try again, because I want to make sure I get what you are trying to
communicate.

1) People vote from the pool of all candidate, for their top 3, ranked.
 For example, Candidate 1: 1st place, Candidate 2, 3rd place, C3, no place,
C4, no place, C5, 2nd place, and the rest of the cnadidates, no place.

2) Each candidate who got ANY rank place (of the three) gets a +1 "point"
per ballot they got ranked on. We know throw out all but the candidates
with the top three "point" scores.

3) Now, we use the ballots to conduct an IRV style algorithm with the three
remaining candidates and determine the winner.

If I *now* got that right, it seems to me that if there are, for example,
ten candidates, and if I choose three and NONE of the three I chose make it
to the final three, then my ballot is irrelevant in choosing which of the
final 3 I preferred.  Therefor there would be a STRONG strategic reason to
make SURE that at least one of the three I rank would be favored to make it
to the final IRV round - which diverges from the possible sincere vote.

-Benn Grant.


On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 12:31 PM, David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>wrote:

> Ben: "You eliminate form consideration all but the top 3 people who were
> ranked, regardless of what rank they got."
>
> dlw: This was unclear about how the top 3 were chosen.
>
> dlw
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Benjamin Grant <benn at 4efix.com> wrote:
>
>> Isn’t that what I said?  If not, where did I get it wrong?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> -Benn Grant****
>>
>> eFix Computer Consulting****
>>
>> benn at 4efix.com****
>>
>> 603.283.6601****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* election-methods-bounces at lists.electorama.com [mailto:
>> election-methods-bounces at lists.electorama.com] *On Behalf Of *David L
>> Wetzell
>> *Sent:* Monday, June 24, 2013 12:20 PM
>> *To:* Benjamin Grant
>> *Cc:* EM
>> *Subject:* Re: [EM] Fwd: Is it professional?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I limit the collection of ranking info to up to 3 rankings per voter,
>> which is useful for practical purposes, and then treat the up to 3 rankings
>> per voter as approval votes to determine which three of the umpteen
>> candidates proceed.  I then process those three with the standard IRV to
>> find the winner.  ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> dlw****
>>
>>
>> ****
>>
>> dlw****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Benjamin Grant <panjakrejn at gmail.com>
>> wrote:****
>>
>> So if I understand you:****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> You have a single election. You permit people to rank up to 3 candidates,
>> no more.  You eliminate form consideration all but the top 3 people who
>> were ranked, regardless of what rank they got. Then, with only those three
>> left, you proceed to process them with standard IRV to find the winner.**
>> **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Is that a correct summation of you system, do I understand it right?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:19 AM, David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>> wrote:****
>>
>> To: Benjamin Grant <benn at 4efix.com>****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Most IRV in real world limits the rankings to 3 candidates per voter.
>> In my approach, I treat the rankings as approval votes in the first round
>> ****
>>
>> and tally up the number of times each candidate gets "ranked" to
>> determine 3 finalists.There are 10 ways to rank 3 finalists so I sort the
>> votes into these 10 categories, tally them up and use the info to have an
>> instant runoff vote among the 3 finalists.****
>>
>>
>> Ben, this is the approach that I said gave the same result for all of the
>> cases you brought up in your initial email to the list, which illustrated
>> why you thought IRV was flawed.****
>>
>> dlw****
>>
>>
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>> info****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20130624/007ebd57/attachment-0004.htm>