On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 12:18:14AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 10:53:42PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > My vexation is that I've convinced myself that if everyone is > > rational and willing to vote strategically, then "second-place" > > candidate will win, because its backers can improve their outcome by > > ranking the lower preferences insincerely, whereas A's backers > > cannot. This is highly counter-intuitive to me. But again, this > > has nothing to do with the proposal, only with Condorcet plus any of > > the tie-break mechanisms I've seen. > > "everyone is rational" is, in general, not the same as "willing to vote > strategically".
Right, I meant "and" as "and also". > Anyways, it sounds like you're comparing the above vote with > 8 ACB > 7 BCA > 5 C > > Intuitively: there's near universal agreement that C is a fairly good > option, and the people favoring A over C are just about cancelled out by > the people favoring B over C. In your previous vote, there was no such > agreement that C was a decent option (most people voted it dead last). Right, this is mostly unrelated to the rest of the discussion, which I hoped to convey by putting it in a footnote and starting with "as an aside". :-) Andrew
