James says:
I answered this part of Mike's argument as well, in the earlier message.
In short, I don't think that sweeping conclusions about voter strategy
should be made based on the behavior of one person in an internet poll.
I comment:
"Sweeping" is always a negative-slant word. How about general conclusions
based on the best information so far available.
And it wasn't based on the behavior of one person in an Internet poll. It
was based on one person iln an Internet poll and many thousands of voters in
Australian IRV elections.
James continues:
In
general, I don't think that voting behavior in internet polls is a good
indicator of voting behavior in serious elections, because in internet
polls: (1) the outcome is totally unimportant
I comment:
Exactly, and so if someone felt the need to favorite-bury, to help their
lesser-evil, even in a poll that doesn't really put someone in office, what
does that tell you about what they'd do in an actual election, where the
future of the country depends on keepting their greater evil from winning?
James continues:
, and (2) the electorate is
more technically inclined than average.
I comment:
If someone intelligent and otherwise sophisticated felt the need to do
lesser-evils favorite-burial, does that make you think that soimeone less
sophisticated woiuld know better?
James says:
Of course that wasn't my point. My point is that when comparing
beatpath(wv) to minmax(po) there is a tradeoff between the above criteria
and FBC, and if the benefit of FBC is not very large, the above criteria
should take precedence
I comment.
But that's a big "if", and one that I never agreed on. The benefit of FBC is
considerably more important than those other criteria you name, judged in
terms of the effect on people's voting when they fear that the criterion
might be violated in the election they're voting in.
James continues:
, and beatpath(wv) should be considered to dominate
minmax(po) from a merit standpoint.
I comment:
...only if someone agrees with you that those other criteria are more
important to the voter and his/her voting strategy behavior than FBC is. Or
FBC and Strong FBC.
You, James, haven't talked to progressives who say that they're going to
bury their favorite because of strategic need to do so. Lots do. Lots do in
Australia, though they don't know about IRV's specific problems.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
