[EM] (no subject)
email9648742 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 25 11:37:40 PDT 2023
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
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...
More information about the Election-Methods