[EM] Condorcet meeting

[C.Benham]

Colin,

> Asking what's wrong with bullet voting is equivalent to asking what's
> wrong with FPTP.
No it isn't. That's like comparing people choosing to remain silent with 
people not being allowed to speak.

> The answer is not that it subverts the system, but that
> it withholds information the system would use to good effect.
Unlike FPP, voluntary bullet voting provides the "information" that 
those voters were given the opportunity to
rank some candidates above equal-bottom and chose not to.

The lower preferences of the supporters of candidates with sufficient 
first-preference support to get on the
final ballot are (as far as I can see) completely irrelevant, so I can't 
imagine what "use to good effect" in this
case that you have in mind.

> But if this summary is pessimistic, voters might indeed fill in
> ranked preference ballots to a reasonable depth.

There is no "reasonable depth" other than exactly what the voter chooses.

> In this case, it seems
> to me that they're being put to unconscionable lengths for what is only
> a primary, and they have no way of knowing where to stop.
If they are really so clueless as to how the system works they can take 
advice from
their favourite candidates/parties.  Most will suggest they just bullet 
vote. I would
think very few would advise them to rank more than three candidates.

> Such criticisms are futile unless it's possible to do better; but I
> had hoped that my own method was better, in that it achieved roughly the
> benefits of voting to depth four at roughly the cost of voting to depth
> one.
Your suggested method transfers some power from voters to candidates, 
which I find
unconscionable.  In that circumstance (along with it being just a 
primary) the supposed
"benefits of voting to depth four" are  imaginary.

Chris Benham



> *Colin Champion* colin.champion at routemaster.app 
> <mailto:election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20Condorcet%20meeting&In-Reply-To=%3Cb8010a11-93a6-b05a-97ff-69e3a052cd49%40routemaster.app%3E>
> /Tue Aug 29 11:31:42 PDT 2023/
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Asking what's wrong with bullet voting is equivalent to asking what's
> wrong with FPTP. The answer is not that it subverts the system, but that
> it withholds information the system would use to good effect. The whole
> of ranked voting theory is based on exploiting the information which
> bullet-voters withhold.
>      I think Chris's summary of how his system might work is fair.
> Supporters of minor parties give their first preferences accordingly,
> and compromise with a mainstream candidate for their second preferences.
> Supporters of mainstream parties (the majority) bullet vote. They don't
> consider the merits of little-known alternatives because it's too much
> effort, and because minor parties get squeezed out by the election
> method in any case. This is very much like PR based on plurality (with a
> little compromising thrown in), and unlike PR by STV except insofar as
> FPTP is its limiting case.
>      But if this summary is pessimistic, voters might indeed fill in
> ranked preference ballots to a reasonable depth. In this case, it seems
> to me that they're being put to unconscionable lengths for what is only
> a primary, and they have no way of knowing where to stop.
>      Such criticisms are futile unless it's possible to do better; but I
> had hoped that my own method was better, in that it achieved roughly the
> benefits of voting to depth four at roughly the cost of voting to depth
> one.
>      CJC

> One of the agenda items is "rules for reducing a large field of
> candidates to a field of 2 to 5". This seems to me an important topic,
> since voters cannot be expected to vote in the way ranked preference
> methods assume if the number of candidates is large. Presumably
> proposals have been made for addressing it; unfortunately I haven't seen
> them.
>
> One which occurs to me is this. There are two rounds, the first of which
> may have up to (say) 20 candidates and reduces the number to (say) 6,
> and the second of which uses ranked preferences to find a single winner
> from the 6.
>      In the first round, each candidate nominates up to 3 "alternates"
> from the rest of the field; these are listed in order against his name
> on the ballot. The ballots use FPTP format - choose *one* option - but
> are processed as multiwinner STV ballots in which a vote for A is
> treated as a vote A>B>C>D, where B...D are his alternates. Surplus votes
> are not transferred. Choose the 6 winners as the survivors to the second
> round.
>      I dare say there exist better ideas, but I thought I'd mention it.
>         CJC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20230830/2050d683/attachment-0001.htm>