>RL Suter: To make a dire warning about how "DH3 pathology" could cause "massive destruction" if any of the voting methods that are theoretically susceptible to it are used is little more than a rhetorical ploy... What is most lacking in this and other discussions on this list about strategic voting is empirical data about how people vote in actual public elections in which different voting methods are used... If the point is to make arguments that are logically compelling, such rhetoric is not merely unhelpful but extremely counterproductive.
--REPLY by WDS: The reason I consider DH3 to be extremely serious and destructive, as opposed to some random election pathology example which is not so serious, is that is is extremely COMMON and when it happens it is very BAD. It is the combination of the two Why do I say COMMON? Because all you need are 3 major rivals and at least one additional "dark horse" candidate voters do not like and do not take seriously as a threat to win. This is very common. Indeed, pretty much the only occasions where this does not happen, are when you only have 2 major rivials, in which case, since plurality is the best system in 2-canddiate elections, the whole discussion about improving on plurality would largely be moot. Assuming we are having such a discussion, then you have to regard DH3 as very common. Why do I say BAD? Because it causes the candidate unanimously agreed worst, to get elected. That is as bad as it possibly can be. I think these are objective criteria, not inflamed rhetoric. Warren D Smith http://RangeVoting.org ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
