Michael Ossipoff wrote: > Sure, Condorcet fails Participation. And of course it would be better > to not fail Participation. But Partilcipation isn't about a strategy > dilemma. It's about an embarrassment. You know that no method can > aviod embarrassments of some kind or other. You know, that goes back > to Kenneth Arrow.
My intention in drawing attention to that proof was to provide ammunition in favour of Condorcet, not against it. Condorcet's Participation failure apparently requires there to be four candidates in a cycle, which I don't consider to be a practical concern. > But I use Partilcipation when comparing Approval to IRV. Some say > that's dishonest, to use Participation when my favorite method, > Condorcet, fails Participation. I would say that it is somewhat misleading and inconsistent, and counter-productive to the goals of educating people and promoting the Condorcet criterion. > But it isn't, because, unlike Condorcet, IRV has no redeeming > qualities to outweigh its Participation failure. To be charitable, that is an absurd exaggeration made purely for the sake of being provocative. A more intelligent and appropriate attack on IRV could be made along the lines that it's Participation failures are much more severe than Condorcet's because they are possible in relatively common-place scenarios with just three candidates and no cycle. (This seems to be Auros/M.Harman's main objection to IRV.) So it seems to me that some weakened form of the Participation criterion that captures one of IRV's problems versus Condorcet might be of some use/interest. Chris Benham > > ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
