[EM] So I got an email... / IIA

[Kevin Venzke]

Hi Richard (F.),

Le dimanche 10 avril 2022, 12:34:37 UTC−5, Richard, the VoteFair guy <electionmethods at votefair.org> a écrit :
> This discussion about IRV and FairVote (not VoteFair) is motivating me
> to point out my different perspective of the Burlington VT mayoral
> election result.
> 
> IMO the biggest failure in the Burlington was an IIA -- independence of
> irrelevant alternatives -- failure.  Not the Condorcet failure.
> 
> If the Republican candidate had not been in the race, the Democrat would
> have won instead of the Progressive.  That didn't happen because the
> Republicans voted sincerely.  If they had voted tactically by ranking
> the Republican after the Democrat and before the Progressive, their
> ballots would not have gotten "stuck" supporting the Republican during
> the top-three counting round where the Democrat was eliminated.

I somewhat view it this way, although I think it won't ring true for many people
to call the first-round IRV leader an "irrelevant alternative" or even spoiler.
IIA also sounds a little abstract, and doesn't make it clear that specific voters
can have a grievance, that it's not just a candidate or a theoretician who is
complaining.

So I prefer to focus on the compromise incentive on the Republican voters, as you
mention.

The relationship with Condorcet is that strategy criteria (whether nomination or
voting strategy) can provide the motivation for Condorcet. One doesn't have to
adopt Condorcet as a fundamental principle. And Condorcet also need not be the
last word on whichever properties it's intended to optimize.

So I don't look at a scenario and say "the problem here is that the CW lost." It
should be possible to say more than that. Although perhaps when speaking with
other Condorcet advocates, this statement is good enough as a shorthand.

Kevin