It really depends. Real-world data suggests that it could be more common than that for partisan elections, and (much) less-common for primaries or nonpartisan elections.<div><br></div><div>JQ<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
2011/11/1 David L Wetzell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wetzelld@gmail.com">wetzelld@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Not as much if there are only 3 candidates, according to Stephen Brams, a mathematician determined that in a close 3-way election with only 3 candidates that the odds of non-monotonicity mattering would be 20%. That's still 4-1 in favor of it not mattering and close 3-way elections are not common.<div>
<br></div><div><font color="#888888">dlw </font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Jameson Quinn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com" target="_blank">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div></div><div>2011/10/31 David L Wetzell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wetzelld@gmail.com" target="_blank">wetzelld@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Andy Jennings <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:elections@jenningsstory.com" target="_blank">elections@jenningsstory.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>David,</div><div><br></div><div>My strongest feeling about your recently proposed system is that the "three" is so arbitrary.</div><div><br></div><div>What if there are eight candidates running, and I really like five of them? Then approving three might not be enough. </div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Most people aren't as politically keen as you are. We need to design rules for the typical voter, not ourselves. I think the number of contested seats plus two is a good rule of thumb...</div>
<div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>I know you said that real elections only seem to have four strong candidates, but the current republican primary seems to have at least seven totally legitimate candidates in the race. </div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>define totally legit? From a wonk perspective or a hack perspective? There's three realistic candidates right now, and a bunch of me threes/fours/what-nots</div><div>. </div><div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>Both 2008 primaries were the same way. Sure, the press is constantly trying to whittle it down to about four. But why should we let the press do the whittling? Shouldn't that be done by the voting system in some way? Should we use a different system for these larger elections?</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>dlw: It's not just a media thing, it's also a matter of cost-benefit analysis. When there's only one winner, it just isn't cost-effective for there to be lots and lots of candidates. </div>
<div><br></div><div>My point is based on reality as it is, not as I'd like it to be. We need to gear our reforms to reality, not our wishful thinking about how elections ought to be... </div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><br></div><div>If there are only three candidates running, then the AV step does nothing. If there are four candidates running, then the AV step is really anti-plurality.</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>
dlw: I'm saying that there can be more than three or four candidates on the ballot, but there tends to be 3 or 4 serious candidates by virtue of economics of elections. .. </div><div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div><div>And as Kathy pointed out, you'd still better tell people that it's not safe to put their favorite first.</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>dlw: That'd be silly. If you do the math, while it's possible that there could be a non-monotonicity problem in the unlikely event of a close three way election, it's still less likely than the more typical outcome where it makes sense to vote your preferences. And so long as the odds favor the typical outcome, the possibility of a sour grapes situation are not consequential. It does not rationally change voter behavior.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div><div>In nonpartisan/monopartisan elections, including party primaries, there is unlikely to be a nonmonotonicity problem. In partisan elections where more-or-less one-dimensional spectra are the norm, nonmonotonicity is a very real threat.</div>
<div><br></div><font color="#888888"><div>JQ</div></font></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>