[EM] LaterNoHelp

[Forest Simmons]

LNhelp is a double edged sword. If lower ranked votes cannot help your
opponent, they cannot be counted on to help you either. Yet one of the
biggest talking point claims of IRV advocates is that it satisfies Reliable
Later Help: "If your first place choice is eliminated, then your second
place choice will still be there."

This is the Later Help promise that converts voters to Instant Runoff
Voting. In other words, (according to the promise) unlike other voting
methods, IRV makes it safe to always vote your sincere favorite at the top
of your ballot ... you don't have to betray your favorite to keep your
anti-favorite from winning.

One problem with this promise is that it is false; your second place choice
may well be eliminated before your first place choice is eliminated.

The other problem is its disingenuity: it directly contradicts a lesser
(but true) selling point ... namely its satisfaction of Later No Help.

IRV advocates want to have it both ways ... they want to be able to say it
satisfies both Later No Help and Reliable Later Help, which is impossible.

The irony is that voters would rather have Reliable Later Help (the false
claim) than Later No Help (the true claim). That's why their salesmen
double down on Reliable Later Help, but hardly mention Later No Help (which
doesn't even sound that helpful) except in one context: when bashing the
Condorcet Criterion.

The irony on top of irony is that IRV supporters criticize Condorcet
methods for making the correct choice (as much as possible) between Later
No Help and Reliable Later Help.

In summary, Later No Help and Reliable Later Help are incompatible.
Condorcet advocates acknowledge this fact and place themselves 80 percent
of the way between LaterNoHelp and ReliableLaterHelp on the spectrum of
possibilities.

IRV public relations biggest selling point is the false claim that IRV is
at the right extreme of the spectrum (100 percent Reliable Later Help),
while admitting its 100 percent satisfaction of Later No Help, but without
acknowledging this patent contradiction.

Like Monk says, "I might be wrong, but I don't think so."

-Forest
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20220602/f763a7eb/attachment.html>