<html><head>
</head>
<body style="margin-bottom:45px">
<div style="font-size: 10pt;"><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">On the street with my phone, so I'm terse...</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">(Interspersed)</div><div><div dir="auto" font-size:9pt;"=""><i>Powered by Cricket Wireless</i></div></div></div><div style="font-size: 10pt;"><div id="LGEmailHeader" dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">------ Original message------</div><div dir="auto"><b>From: </b>Kristofer Munsterhjelm<km_elmet@t-online.de></km_elmet@t-online.de></div><div dir="auto"><b>Date: </b>Fri, Sep 9, 2022 4:16 PM</div><div dir="auto"><b>To: </b>robert bristow-johnson<a href="mailto:;jamesgilmour@f2s.com">;jamesgilmour@f2s.com</a>;EM;</div><div dir="auto"><b>Cc: </b></div><div dir="auto"><b>Subject:</b>Re: [EM] Defeat Strength</div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div><pre>On <a href="tel:09.09.2022 18">09.09.2022 18</a>:42, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
>
>> On 09/09/2022 12:16 PM EDT James Gilmour <jamesgilmour@f2s.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> In an STV-PR election (a.k.a. RCV), the voter's second and any
>> subsequent preferences are contingency choices, to be used only in
>> the contingency that the voter's first choice candidate cannot be
>> elected (because of lack of support) or has already been elected to
>> represent a full quota of voters (and so does not need the
>> additional support).
>>
>
> But James, we know that that is not always the case. Burlington 2009
> and now, Alaska 2022, are counter-examples that disprove that.
>
> In Burlington 2009, Kurt Wright voters were promised (as we all were
> promised) that if their first-choice cannot win, their second-choice
> vote is counted. Wright was defeated and those voters' second-choice
> votes were not counted. Had their second-choice votes been counted,
> a different candidate for mayor would have been elected.
As I understand it, James considers an IRV ballot to be a kind of
program instruction, so that e.g. voting A>B>C is a way of telling the
voting method "I want my ballot to count towards A until he's
eliminated; then I want my ballot to count towards B until/unless he's
eliminated, etc".</jamesgilmour@f2s.com></pre><pre><jamesgilmour@f2s.com><br></jamesgilmour@f2s.com></pre><pre><jamesgilmour@f2s.com>>>> and my point is, if we're fair, we can't define "eliminated" in a conveniently parochial way that suits our product instead of being consistent.</jamesgilmour@f2s.com></pre><pre><jamesgilmour@f2s.com><br></jamesgilmour@f2s.com></pre><pre><jamesgilmour@f2s.com>
From such a perspective there is no failure because the voters gave the
method certain instructions, and the method obeyed these instructions,
and the winner was who was elected since that's what the procedure says.
If I understand that right, then there's no promise of a vote counting
towards B if A can't win, </jamesgilmour@f2s.com></pre><pre><jamesgilmour@f2s.com><br></jamesgilmour@f2s.com></pre><pre><jamesgilmour@f2s.com>>>> there certainly is. I quoted Howard Dean saying that. I think FairVote says that explicitly.</jamesgilmour@f2s.com></pre><pre><jamesgilmour@f2s.com>because B could be eliminated before A and so
the ballot skips directly from A to C. Which leads to Condorcet failure,</jamesgilmour@f2s.com> nonmonotonicity, and so on.</pre><pre><jamesgilmour@f2s.com><br></jamesgilmour@f2s.com></pre><pre><jamesgilmour@f2s.com>>>> What difference does that make to the voter who is promised "Vote your hopes, not your fears."?</jamesgilmour@f2s.com></pre><pre>>>> They are saying on their ballot "I am directing my vote to go for my fav A, but if my fav is defeated, then I am directing my vote to go to my fall back B."</pre><pre><jamesgilmour@f2s.com><br></jamesgilmour@f2s.com></pre><pre><jamesgilmour@f2s.com><br></jamesgilmour@f2s.com></pre><pre><jamesgilmour@f2s.com>
Since IRV passes both LNHarm and LNHelp, the procedural interpretation
does happen to coincide with the (method-independent) idea that unranked
candidates should be considered to rank below every explicitly ranked
candidate, because that's the effect not ranking candidates has on the
method. But if the method were different, the procedural interpretation
would also come to a different conclusion.
(However, I don't think the procedural interpretation is particularly
common; at least it isn't how IRV has been sold.)
-km
</jamesgilmour@f2s.com></pre></div>
</body></html>