[EM] (3) Best Single-Winner Method

robert bristow-johnson rbj at audioimagination.com
Mon Jun 17 23:50:21 PDT 2019

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: Re: [EM] (3) Best Single-Winner Method

From: "Ted Stern" <dodecatheon at gmail.com>

Date: Mon, June 17, 2019 10:24 pm

To: rbj at audioimagination.com

Cc: "steve bosworth" <stevebosworth at hotmail.com>

"EM" <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>


> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 18:51 robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com>

> wrote:




>> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

>> Subject: Re: [EM] (3) Best Single-Winner Method


From: "Ted Stern" <dodecatheon at gmail.com>

>> Date: Mon, June 17, 2019 5:24 pm

>> To: "steve bosworth" <stevebosworth at hotmail.com>

>> Cc: "election-methods at lists.electorama.com" <

>> election-methods at lists.electorama.com>

>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------


>> > I would certainly favor Majority Judgment over many other options, if there

>> > were no other choice, though I'd prefer if it included a runoff against the

>> > Condorcet Winner if one exists.



>> I know that i am just stuck in Condorcet Land and I haven't completely

>> groked MJ (because i don't like the ballot), but can you guys help me

>> understand how **any** candidate beats the Condorcet Winner in a runoff?



> Voters are not rational.
Yeah, but I wouldn't wanna base a governmental election system on that assumption.
> Also, in a runoff, they are not necessarily the same voters.
But one of the purposes of voting with ranked ballots is so that they **are** the same voters. 
This is why we collect contingency preferences from the *same* voters on the *same* election day.
>> If you have an election method and subject that winner of that method to
>> the CW (whom must have been chosen from ranked-ballot results) in a runoff,

>> does not always the CW win? If so, then why not just elect the CW?


> Indeed, that would be the case. But I think voters may not realize the

> ramifications of their selections in early use of any new method, so an

> option to reconsider might be beneficial.
I dooooooon't like that.  I think elections should be decisive.
I ain't UK, but I hate Brexit almost as much as I hate Trump and Trumpism, and I think that the original Brexit question in 2016 was malformed.  It should have, from
the very beginning, have been understood to be a two-referendum deal.  The first (in 2016) to get the ball rolling (or to end the discussion if the question fails), then Parliament and the Government gets to negotiate the best deal they can with the EU, and **then** that actual deal is put to
referendum for a final yes/no vote.  If it passes both times, it's hard to declare it's not the will of the people in a democracy.  But this is essentially a "constitutional" level political question.  In the States, that would need 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to
change.  Changing something "constitutionally" should not be easy.  It should never have been decided by a thin, simple majority in a single election.  (Fuck, what are the next generation of Brits gonna think about their stupid parents generation and elders fucking up their
But, in general, if people get to weigh in on something, or on a candidate, and the people speak and then later you give them the "option to reconsider" and in between all sorts of money and election shenanigans get dumped in there, and then the "voice" of the
people changes to a different collective opinion.  Especially if the margin is thin, if we're the voters that originally prevailed and then they tell us we didn't in the "reconsideration", then it's time for pitchforks and torches and trouble in the streets.  This is why, when
there is a FPTP election with no majority, and the law calls for a (delayed) runoff, and only half of the electorate that voted on the original election day show up for the runoff, and the original plurality winner is defeated in the runoff with half of the usual voters voting, there is trouble and
the legitimacy of the upset winner is questioned.
Delayed runoffs suck.  They suck green donkey dick.  Almost as bad as FPTP sucks.  This is why we want Ranked-Choice Voting even in cases where majorities are required.
Still a partisan for Condorcet with the simplest
meaningful rules for dealing with possible cycles.
Someday, when I have time to form some questions, I'll ask Chris B for detail (maybe examples) why he doesn't like RP with Margins.  Seems simple to me.  And meaningful.

r b-j                         rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20190617/4bf7218d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list