[EM] Question to the Condorcetists

[Sass]

I recently made a meme relevant to this topic:
https://www.reddit.com/r/EndFPTP/comments/17y3fsb/pairwise_comparisonsequential_elimination/

Just like IIA and Cloneproofness and so many other criteria failed by many
Condorcet methods,  Participation only matters in elections when there is
not a Condorcet Winner (CW), which means it only creates an actionable
strategy when someone can predict that a given election will not have a CW.

I tend to prefer cardinal methods because of the increased expressivity and
reduced cognitive load on the voter, but the more I think about Condorcet
methods, the more impenetrable they seem. It just comes down to explaining
it to voters and legal viability. That's why I like "elect the candidate
who is preferred over the most others" as a method (i.e. Ranked Robin (i.e.
Copeland)).


On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 1:03 PM <
election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com> wrote:

> Send Election-Methods mailing list submissions to
>         election-methods at lists.electorama.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         election-methods-owner at lists.electorama.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Election-Methods digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Question to the Condorcetists (Closed Limelike Curves)
>    2. Re: Question to the Condorcetists (Michael Ossipoff)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 10:36:40 -0800
> From: Closed Limelike Curves <closed.limelike.curves at gmail.com>
> To: election-methods at electorama.com
> Subject: [EM] Question to the Condorcetists
> Message-ID:
>         <CA+euzPi2VRg_Z_4C32zCE+t=gu4OXAjoffs=_sch=
> UXH6V3CYg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Can Condorcet be weakened to comply with participation? Condorcet methods
> have plenty of advantages, but systems failing participation are vulnerable
> to court challenges or being struck down as unconstitutional, as seen in
> Germany.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240228/3bb08c49/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 11:32:43 -0800
> From: Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
> To: Closed Limelike Curves <closed.limelike.curves at gmail.com>
> Cc: election-methods at electorama.com
> Subject: Re: [EM] Question to the Condorcetists
> Message-ID:
>         <CAOKDY5DX=s7TsxiX5ir1eM=PG2y1176YVEs_L0L=
> pJ3+V_CDRQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> It?s surprising that participation-violation is unconstitutional in
> Germany, because, here, even Hare?s greater nonmonotonicity is okay.
>
> It?s disingenuous to say that Hare is nonmonotonic & Condorcet isn?t.
> Nonmonotonicity is just defined to give Condorcet, with it?s
> participation-failure, a pass.
>
> I?ve heard that Participation & the Condorcet Criterion are mutually
> incompatible. I feel that participation-failure is an acceptable price for
> the Condorcet Criterion. Always electing the voted CW brings strategy
> improvement, & the unpredictable & rare participation-failure is probably
> irrelevant to strategy.
>
> But that incompatibility, along with the ones Arrow pointed-out, shows that
> single-winner elections aren?t perfect.  ?making a good argument for
> PR?*monotonic* PR, which excludes STV & Largest-Remainder.
>
> Maybe, as a PR country (like 2/3 of the world?s countries), Germany feels
> no need to compromise participation.
>
> We?re told that list-PR ?hasn?t been tried?. No, just in 2/3 of the world?s
> countries for about a century.
>
> But, with that counterfactual ?hasn?t been tried? excuse, we?re stuck in
> the 18th century, & always will be, while most of the world has moved on to
> democracy.
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:36 Closed Limelike Curves <
> closed.limelike.curves at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Can Condorcet be weakened to comply with participation? Condorcet methods
> > have plenty of advantages, but systems failing participation are
> vulnerable
> > to court challenges or being struck down as unconstitutional, as seen in
> > Germany.
> > ----
> > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> > info
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240228/20e515a6/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Election-Methods mailing list
> Election-Methods at lists.electorama.com
> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Election-Methods Digest, Vol 235, Issue 41
> *************************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240229/9ff1c3cf/attachment-0001.htm>