RE: [EM] RE: Election-methods digest, Vol 1 #581 - 8 msgs
James Gilmour wrote: Now consider: 49 ACB 48 BCA 3 CBA IRV winner = B; CW winner = C. Mike replied: You've used where you meant . Thanks, Mike, for pointing out my mistake. The two examples should, of course, have been: 35 ACB 33 BCA 32 CBA IRV winner = B; CW winner = C 49 ACB 48 BCA 3 CBA IRV winner = B; CW winner = C. Incidentally -- It is interesting that several others have commented on these examples without, apparently, seeing these mistakes. On my part, was it just 12 stupid typos, the effect of the in the margin, or a Freudian slip of much greater significance? END of digression! You continued: I doubt very much whether most electors would accept C as the winner if this were an election for Sate Governor, much less for a directly elected President of the USA. If anyone has evidence to the contrary I'd like very much to see it. I reply: Ok, I'll give you evidence to the contrary: It's in your rankings. 52 people prefer C to B. If B and C ran in a 2-candidate election, then, unless you believe that those people will vote against their own preference between those two, C will win, 52 to 48. This is not evidence, just a restatement of what is the self-evident outcome of the Condorcet election. And it was not a 2-candidate election with only B and C. What I am saying is that I believe, based on my daily involvement with politicians, party activists, campaigners for voting reform and campaigners against voting reform, that there will be a general reaction against the result and the voting system when they see the CW outcome of the 49/48/3 vote. They will understand all the intellectual arguments for the CW, but in these particular circumstances, they will still say there is something wrong here - this result is not acceptable. This is my interpretation of the intuitive responses or gut reactions of those I encounter in practical politics. I do not have any attitudinal survey data to confirm my view; it is just my interpretation of the political responses I have encountered. But I should be very pleased to see any such data that show my interpretation is wrong. It would be very re-assuring to know that the Condorcet Winners would be accepted in major public elections where those CWs had first preference support of only tiny proportions of those who voted, just a few percent. James Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
RE: [EM] RE: Election-methods digest, Vol 1 #581 - 8 msgs
Mike pointed out: You've used where you meant . James Gilmour wrote: It is interesting that several others have commented on these examples without, apparently, seeing these mistakes. On my part, was it just 12 stupid typos, the effect of the in the margin, or a Freudian slip of much greater significance? It could also be that there are perfectly reasonable (if nonstandard) interpretations under which either direction can be used to mean the same thing. AB might mean B is greater than (better than) A -- or it might mean that when placing A and B in order, A comes first. It depends whether you understand the to compare cardinalities such as utility, or to simply indicate order. -wclark -- Protest the 2-Party Duopoly: http://votenader.org/ Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
RE: [EM] RE: Election-methods digest, Vol 1 #581 - 8 msgs
James Gilmour wrote: It is interesting that several others have commented on these examples without, apparently, seeing these mistakes. On my part, was it just 12 stupid typos, the effect of the in the margin, or a Freudian slip of much greater significance? END of digression! For me, it was simply a case of looking at the example for only a half a second before assuming it was the weak middle example again, and never bothering to look back. Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] RE: Election-methods digest, Vol 1 #581 - 8 msgs
James Gilmour said: Now consider: 49 ACB 48 BCA 3 CBA IRV winner = B; CW winner = C. I reply: You've used where you meant . You continued: I doubt very much whether most electors would accept C as the winner if this were an election for Sate Governor, much less for a directly elected President of the USA. If anyone has evidence to the contrary I'd like very much to see it. I reply: Ok, I'll give you evidence to the contrary: It's in your rankings. 52 people prefer C to B. If B and C ran in a 2-candidate election, then, unless you believe that those people will vote against their own preference between those two, C will win, 52 to 48. Mike Ossipoff _ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
