[EM] (no subject)

[Michael Ossipoff]

Some academic authors have high praise for Coombs. One say that, with
sincere ranking, & fewer than 5 candidates, Coombs always elects the CW.

But Coombs is obviously vulnerable to east burial strategy. In particular,
trust & betrayal perpetrated by the voters of a “ lesser”-evil.

Sure, after that betrayal, they’d hopefully never have any support from
their victims again.

But 1) Again we’re talking about resolution at least an election-cycle
later; & 2) It could devolve to never-ending routine mutual burial.

Coombs doesn’t sound very promising to me.

Though I prefer inevitable election of the CW, I repeat that RCV’s
elimination of him/her is *not* a failure.

It’s part of a valid Mutual-Majority logic. I suggest that the elimination
of your lesser-evil warrants a closer examination.

LE = lesser-evil. F = favorite. GE = greater evil.

Say LE is smallest & gets eliminated 1st.  If LE is CW, then it can form a
majority with voters of F or GE.

Which it is, of course depends on which the LE voters prefer. They choose.

Say the LE voters prefer F.  F wins.

Is that a betrayal of the LE voters by the F voters? No !  Both factions
ranked eachother’s candidate 2nd. Both had every right to top-rank their
favorite, with natural expectation that they will do so.

It’s just a matter of electing the biggest candidate of the
Mutual-Majority…the Mutual-Majority consisting of both factions, & which
they both want to elect.

Or say the LE voters prefer GE. Then your F loses. Why did that happen to
you & F? Obviously The LE voters don’t like F, & don’t choose you in
forming a Mutual Majority.

Maybe you should nominate someone more likeable. Maybe you need a better
platform.

A majority don’t want your candidate or your platform. Whose fault is that?
Don’t blame RCV or Rob Richie.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20230925/3a5b2610/attachment.htm>