Rob Lanphier wrote: > In fairness, the specification for counting votes is something > that voters will probably care about, and it is one of the > biggest liabilities of Condorcet. Part of the uphill battle for > Condorcet advocates is to convince people that even if they don't > understand exactly how it works, it's still a better system (the > tactic I've usually advocated is endorsement from trusted smart > people).
This tactic seems possibly dangerous to me. There's a fine line between asking the public to trust a decentralized network of experts (open-source software, "mainstream" science: good) and asking them to place their trust in a centralized "expert" authority (governments, cult leaders: bad). I think many people can't tell the difference between the two and either trust both or neither. I'd prefer that a public election system be simple for everyone to understand in the first place. I think Warren Smith makes a good point when he says that many voters would be tempted to use Borda-like strategy under a Condorcet system, however effective it can be shown to be. If my sincere vote were A>B>C and C obviously had almost no chance to win, I'd be very tempted to vote A>C>B to hurt B's chances. And under a winning-votes system I'd strategize by voting A=B>C even if I knew nothing or expected it to be a close three-way race. Following this intuitive Borda-style strategy under Approval or Range Voting never requires expression of an insincere pairwise preference. -- Rob LeGrand, psephologist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Citizens for Approval Voting http://www.approvalvoting.org/ ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
