<div dir="ltr">
<pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Sorry about the delay—We had a lot to do, & then my phone somehow deleted Robert’s post, & so then I had to find it in the archives, further delaying the time when I’d have time to do so.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">I shouldn’t answer this post, because it’s so obvious, everyone must already know what it is. The post isn’t worthy of a reply. I’ll reply this time, but this is the last time.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">[quote]<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">[quote]<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">><i> To most everyone, OPOV is synonymous with the Plurality, Vote-For-1 (VF1), voting-system.<span></span></i></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">><i> <span></span></i></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">><i> …& yes I admit that, by that definition, Approval indeed violates OPOV.<span></span></i></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">><i> <span></span></i></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">><i> …& I admit that Condorcet violates it too.<span></span></i></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">><i> <span></span></i></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">[/quote]<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Certainly FPTP and IRV and Condorcet count people differently, but what they're doing is counting people, some group of people against some other group of people and saying that, if every person's vote counts equally, then the candidate that has more persons voting for him/her wins the election.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">[/quote]<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Nonsense. <span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">It isn’t about counting people. In general, it’s about counting each person’s rating of [u]each[/u] particular candidate, or each person’s vote on a particular pairwise-comparison. <span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…&, in particular, Approval counts the abovementioned ratings, by each person, of each candidate.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">One-person-one-vote…on each candidate’s merit, or on each pairwise-comparison. <span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Note that that requires counting a [u]number[/u] of merit or comparison votes for each voter.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">That entails more than a count of people. It requires counting each person’s expression regarding each candidate or pair of candidates.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">A plain count of people has no use or meaning when there are many candidates & it’s necessary to allow the counting of each person’s comparison of *the various* candidates’ merit, acceptability or preferability, via ratings or a ranking. …indication of comparison of merit, acceptance or preference for candidates, or preferences among pairs of them.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">[quote]<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Approval voting is counting marks.<span> </span>As if marks have equal rights.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">[/quote]<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">That statement is too silly for words. <span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Each voter has equal right to express & have counted hir indication regarding merit or acceptance of each candidate, or regarding preference between each pair of candidates.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Yes, those indications are in the form of marks<span> </span>:-)<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Robert might not realize this, but his claim amounts to the common popular misinterpretation of OPOV as requiring the Vote-For-1 (Plurality) voting-system.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Its requirement of allowing only 1 vote per person, a plain count of people, is, of course, what’s wrong with Plurality.<span> </span>When there are many candidates, free expression of choice among them requires allowing & counting either each person’s rating of each candidate, or each person’s preference among each pair of candidates.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Not only does Robert confuse OPOV with the rules of Vote-For-1, but he wants to selectively forget that his IRVist interpretation of OPOV forbids Condorcet, because Condorcet gives each person a vote between each pair, rather than just one vote or mark.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">So,
wow, Robert. I can’t believe you said that.<span></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">…<span></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I
must say, you really disappoint me. What am I talking to?<span></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">…<span></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I
thought it was just a blustery, sloppy, bad-mannered curmudgeon, someone
sometimes irrational, sometimes mistaken, but nonetheless honest.…someone who
merely favors margins because it does-pretty in the vanishingly-rare
spontaneous circular-tie…someone who is oblivious to margins’ hopeless
strategic quagmire.<span></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">…<span></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">…but
no.<span> </span>I had no idea what I was talking to.
<span></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">…<span></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">This
time you’ve really outdone yourself.<span></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">…<span></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span> </span>I don’t mean that you’re intentionally
consciously dishonest. It’s just that you’re one of those people (they’re very
common) who will uncritically believe whatever assumption supports something
else that they want to believe. <span></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It’s
genuine mistakenness, but it’s [u]willful[/u] mistakenness (to use the more
polite word).<span></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">…<span></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Those
careless & sloppy comments don’t deserve the time it takes to reply to
them.<span></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">…<span></span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Suit
yourself & believe what you want to.<span>
</span>…& the Founding-Fathers fought for your right to express your
beliefs. But I have a right to not display it on my computer. I’m going to
exercise that patriotic right, by blocking your e-mail, as soon as this message
has been sent.<span></span></p>
<pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">[/b]<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">When I don’t answer Robert’s subsequent arguments, it doesn’t mean that he’s said something irrefutable—It’s just because I no longer display his messages on my computer.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Now, a few comments on other statements in the post:<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">[quote]<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Now, measuring Approval on an Approval ballot is, in a degenerate case, essentially the same measure as measuring Approval on a Score ballot, where the degree of Approval is limited to two levels.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Now, what the Ordinal methods do are, instead of asking the electorate about how much they Approve a candidate, they ask "Do you *prefer* this candidate over this other candidate?"<span> </span>We voters are partisans, not judges.<span> </span>We cannot be nor should be expected to be measuring (and awarding) worth of a candidate.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">[/quote]<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Facilitating the expression of, & counting, each person’s preference between each possible pair of candidates is fine. …& humungously computationally-demanding, with the consequent serious problems, but perfectly alright in principle.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Allowing expression of liking or not liking, or of acceptance or rejection, of each candidate is another way of allowing the expression of relative preference.<span> </span>…& is a lot more computationally-feasible.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">As I said before, Approval is incomparably easier to define, describe, explain, propose, enact, administer, & security-audit for error & count-fraud.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">That’s much more important than collecting more detailed information, or using an automatic-machine to insulate, isolate & protect voters from <span> </span>involvement in direct expression via a simple reliable minimal handtool.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Does it allow expression of every pairwise-preference? No, but, for tremendously easier counting, it allows rating each candidate. Robert wants to say that we don’t have a right to rate the candidates’ merit. So Robert is the giver of rights?<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Rating each candidate is a more-computationally-feasible substitute for counting every possible pairwise-preference… among all N(N-1)/2 possible pairs among N candidates.<span> </span>...380 pairwise votes to count per person when there are 20 candidates. Try to handcount-audit that.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span> </span><span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Approval allows the expression of many pairwise-preferences…as many as are feasible with the practical limitation to rating instead of ranking.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Depending on how many candidates there are, & how many one chooses to express liking or acceptance of, Approval allows the expression of up to half or most of one’s pairwise-preferences.<span> </span>…the ones that are most important to the voter. <span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">I get that Robert wants the method to accept our preference-orderings & then output the CW, doing everything for us, insulating & isolating & sheltering the voter from the natural choices otherwise to be made. But that comes at too high a cost, as I’ve described in my previous posts,& directly above in this post.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Approval is a different kind of voting from Condorcet rankings. Direct involvement with the situation with a simple low-cost durable reliable handtool--expression of each voter’s Y/N rating of each candidate. …innstead of having it done for us, we do it for ourselves, with the resulting tremendous improvement in computational simplification & feasibility.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…& what’s so bad about maximizing the number of people who get what they like, or are pleasantly-surprised by the outcome?<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Let’s not make a religion of an a**l-retentive compulsion for legalistic automatic decisionmaking.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Multicandidate elections require expression & counting of everyone’s expression of merit or preference comparison among all the candidates.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…by rating each one, or by ranking them.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Minimal is enough, for all things, including the voting-system.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">What overall-is, is good. Reality is benevolent. We have a lot to be grateful for, & should act like it.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">That’s relevant to forum-conduct too.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Continuing with comments on the post:<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">><i> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 18:27 Michael Ossipoff <</i><a href="http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com" style="color:blue;text-decoration:underline"><i>email9648742 at gmail.com</i></a><i>> wrote:<span></span></i></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">><i> > > Approval maximizes the number of people pleasantly-surprised, &/or the number who get something they like.<span></span></i></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">><i> > > <span></span></i></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">[quote]<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">If the stakes are high and you Approve both A and B (but you like A better) and then you find out that the top-two Approval candidates are A and B, but B wins, you might not be very happy that you Approved B.<span> </span>Especially if it was close.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">[/quote]<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">You like it better than what else would have won. That’s why you approved both.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">We’ve been over that a number of times.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Approve as you feel like, & thereby maximize the probability of getting something you like, & maximize your expectation based on what you know &/or feel.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">No, you don’t know what your objectively-optimal vote is. Neither do the other voters, so don’t worry about it.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…& don’t forget that Approval has the voter-median as its Meyerson-Weber equilibrium, soon homing-in on the CW.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">[quote]<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">So Approval, like FPTP, loses information about how voters would vote in different contingencies.<span> </span>But the ranked ballot preserves that information, but it doesn't ask, nor should we care, what degree of preference a voter has for one candidate over another.<span> </span><span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">[/quote]<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Yes, rankings express more information, & Condorcet’s exhaustive pairwise-count counts more information, at too high a cost.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">[quote]<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">It should not matter.<span> </span>If I enthusiastically prefer Candidate A and you prefer Candidate B only tepidly, your vote for B should count just as much as my vote for A.<span> </span>We all get it right when there is only A and B in the race.<span> </span>But when there is C in the race, the Ordinal ballot doesn't force the voter to make tactical considerations like a Cardinal ballot inherently requires.<span> </span>(But bad tallying methods can make voters regret their vote.)<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">[/quote]<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">I’ve admitted that Condorcet does it all for you.<span> </span>…at at too high a cost.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">[quote]<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Condorcet violates One-person-one-vote *only* if there isn't a Condorcet winner.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">[/quote]<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Condorcet violates your IRVist interpretation of OPOV, period.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">[quote]<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New""><span> </span>Then Arrow and Gibbard prevail and, no matter what method is used, the election is spoiled.<span> </span>There is a candidate that can be removed which will result in changing who would be elected.<span> </span>Can't be avoided but we should do the best that we can do in that rare pathological circumstance.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">[/quote]<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Yes Condorcet fails Participation, Consistency & IIAC. Approval doesn’t.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Condorcet inherently violates FBC, so rarely & unpredictably that the FBC failure is strategically-irrelevant.<span> </span>But Condorcet other than wv Condorcet fails FBC as blatantly and problematically as does IRV.<span> </span>…resulting in a strategic quagmire the same as that of IrV.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">[quote]<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">My opinion is that when no Condorcet winner exists, the easiest sell to the public (and legislature that might enact such law) is either just the Plurality (of first-choice votes) winner or perhaps the runoff winner between the top two first-choice vote getters.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">[/quote]<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">:-D<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…if you want un-deterred burial by whatever faction believes its candidate to have a plurality, but not be CW.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">[quote]<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">To disincentivize sophisticated strategic voting, probably Schulze or Ranked Pairs is best.<span> </span>I prefer margins over winning-votes.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">[/quote]<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">I remind Robert that Schilze explicitly uses winning-votes.<span> </span>…& that winning-votes, & not margins, deters offensive-strategy in RP & Beatpath.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Without that deterrence, you have a strategic need to toprank all the acceptable candidates to try to protect them from burial.<span> </span>But, because you can’t be sure that sufficiently-many other voters will share your strategy, you need to try to further enhance that protection by ranking the acceptable candidates in order of winnability instead of preference or merit.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">But that “winnability” is difficult to judge or even define, Somehow you have to hope that everyone who prefers similarly to you will rank the acceptable candidates as you do.<span> </span>Sound familiar?<span> </span>It’s like how we have to hope that all who prefer as we do will combine together on the same candidate in 1-Vote Plurality. Big complication, to attain no improvement over Plurality.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">leaving you with Plurality’s & IRV’s strategic quagmire that I mentioned above.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">I’m not saying that your versions of Condorcet is worse (or better) than IRV.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">But, with them, you get nothing in return for the big problems resulting from the complication & computation-intensiveness of the exhaustive pairwise-count of rank-balloting.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Condorcet(margins),& CW,Topcount both do an excellent job of retaining IRV’s strategic quagmire.<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">…<span></span></pre><pre style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New"">Who recommended CW,Topcount to the Vermont legislature?<span></span></pre>
</div>