Big thing I read from this is that if voters fail to rank sincerely, they
need some crash education.
Perhaps plotters can profit from carefully planned insincere votes, but
any other deviation from sincerity is suicide.
DWK
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:38:31 +0000 MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
Adam--
You wrote:
In my opinion, a method where favorite betrayal scenarios are restricted to
a very narrow range of situations are not a major problem.
I reply:
That's what I believed too. I thought that I, and maybe a few others who
share my opinions of the candidates, would be the only ones to do
favorite-burial in wv Condorcet elections.
But then I watched a progressive voting in an Internet presidential
poll, by rank balloting, counted by BeatpathWinner. That person said
that Kerry's policies and honesty weren't as good as Nader, but she
voted Kerry, and all the other Democrat candidates, over Nader. Just
what LO2E progressives do now.
I admit that that is the only person whom I've observed to do that. But
that is the only person whom I've observed when they voted in an
Internet poll. In those polls, as in real elecdtions, there are many
votes for the Democrats. How many of those are by
lesser-of-2-evils-dominated Nader-preferrers?
You might say that observation of one person doesn't prove anything. Of
course not. But it isn't just one person. It's two, because, as I was
saying, I myself would do favorite-burial to increase the probability
that an acceptable candidate would win. The score, then, is two out of two.
Now obviously, in Internet presidential staw polls by rank balloting,
not every Nader-preferrer votes Nader below the Democrats. That's
obvious because Nader usually wins those polls. But you certainly can't
tell by someone's ballot what their actual preferences are. I can tell
you that particular voter's preferences because she told me. And I can
tell you for sure that I'd favorite-bury to maximize the probability of
an acceptable candidate winning. As I said, then, it's two out of two.
Another thing: Of course the fact that Nader wins those staw polls
doesn't mean that those Nader-preferrers would vote the same way in a
real election. They know it isn't a real election, and many are free of
their LO2E domination. (I myself voted all the acceptables together in
1st place instead of ranking them sincerely. I didn't rank them in order
of winnability because, without AERLO, that might or might not be better
than equal ranking, and because it's more work, and because it isn't so
easy to estimate their winnability.)
But when that person voted her favorite below all the Democrats, even in
a staw poll, you can bet that she'd do the same thing if it were a real
election.
We can theorize about what voters would do, but I'm just reporting about
two voters whose preferences and voting I'm in a postition to report.
You continued:
If the polls
start to look something like this, voters will know well in advance. In the
vast majority of situations, there is no incentive to bury your favorite.
I reply:
Our mass-media polls have questionable reliability. And how many voters
are sophisticated enough to assure themselves that that the situation is
such that they can't regret not doing favortite-burial?
You continued:
Forest has argued recently (with regards to DMC, but the argument still
applies here) that voters will be very reluctant to vote full favorite
betrayal unless they know for certain that it is necessary.
I reply:
Maybe, for most voters, or maybe not. All I can say is that it isn't
true of the two voters about whom I'm in a postiion to report.
You know, it depends on how the voter values the candidates. What would
you yourself do if it were an acceptable/unacceptable situation for you?
If you vote optimally, you yourself would favorite-bury if it would
maximize the probability of the winner being an acceptable candidate.
And that could be so even if there is no information available about
whether or not that special FBC-failure situation exists.
You continued:
This runs
contrary to what Mike suggest, which is that voters will reverse order
unless they are absolutely sure it is *not* necessary.
I reply:
You, like me, would do that if it were an acceptable/unacceptable
situation, and, lacking the information needed to judge if an
FBC-failiure could happen, favorite-burial would maximize the
probability that the winner would be an acceptable candidate.
You continued:
Ultimately it is very
hard for any of us to predict what effect wv Condorcet voting would have on
the political climate and people's attitudes toward voting.
I reply:
True. I was really surprised when that intelligent progressive voted her
favorite below all the Democrats. That shows that we can't make reliable
predictions without observations. As I said, all I have to report is
two voters' preferences and voting. But I can tell you that anyone who
perceives an acceptable/unacceptable situation, and wants to maximize
their expectation, will favorite-bury if it maximizes the probability
that the winner will be an acceptable candidate.
Mike Ossipoff
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
