# [EM] Fwd: Is it professional?

David L Wetzell wetzelld at gmail.com
Mon Jun 24 10:08:32 PDT 2013

```Hi Ben, 1)  they get to vote or rank up to 3 candidates.  If someone only
wants one candidate to win they need not rank others or if they only had
time to learn about two or three and only really liked one or two of those
candidates then they could rank one or two of them.

2 and 3 are right.

Yes, if your top 3 were not among the top 3 for everyone then your vote
would count in the first stage, not the final stage.  And yes that could
lead to some strategic voting, but there'd be less of such.   And this
would not be a common phenomenon if the top 3 are genuinely more
competitive candidates.  In Warren's example, only 2/37 votes didn't have
one of the top 3 candidates among their top three candidates.  That's
basically 5.4% and that was with a system where all seven candidates had a
priori equal chances of being the final winner, not a realistic assumption.
dlw

dlw

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Benjamin Grant <panjakrejn at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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/bd92919c/attachment-0004.htm>
```