On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:46:07 -0000 James Gilmour wrote:
>>On Dec 22, 2007, at 6:45 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
>>
>>>If you wish to utilise in some way all the information that could be
>>>recorded on a preferential ballot, that is a completely
>>>different voting system from IRV, with different objectives. The
>>>preferences are no longer 'contingency choices', but take on a new
>>>function depending on the detail of the voting system. It is almost
>>>certain that the voters would mark their ballots in a different
>>>way in an election by such a voting system from how they would mark
>>>their contingency choices in an election by IRV.
>>
>
> Jonathan Lundell > Sent: 22 December 2007 19:00
>
>>This seems plausible enough (and certainly IRV voters should be
>>instructed along contingency lines). WRT marking ballots differently,
>>setting manipulation aside, and considering only contingency vs
>>preferential ranking, do you have an example or two of how and why a
>>voter might end up with different ballots in the two contexts?
>
>
> That is a very fair question, Jonathan, but I do not have any practical
> examples to indicate the circumstances in which voters might
> mark their preferences differently. We do not use IRV for any public
> elections in the UK and so I have no real example to draw on.
> And it is very difficult to invent examples based on direct, single-winner
> elections from other countries without a lot of relevant
> political information, because there is little agreement about how real
> voters would respond, as I have seen repeatedly in
> discussions of such examples as Bush-Nader-Gore. I am not a specialist in
> voter behaviour and so have no special insights on which
> to base "real" predictions.
>
> That said, one situation where IRV ballots and Condorcet ballots might be
> completed similarly would be when there are three strong
> front-runners. Then IRV voters and Condorcet voters might well complete
> their preferential ballots similarly. When the "everyone's
> second choice" candidate had very weak first preference support, they might
> well complete the ballots differently: in Condorcet the
> supporters of the two strong wings might truncate in an attempt to prevent
> the weak second choice from coming through the middle.
> But that suggestion is contentious, as I have seen in other discussions and
> there is no agreement about how voters would really
> react.
>
> Just a word about terminology: IRV ballots, Condorcet ballots and Borda
> ballots are all 'preferential' ballots. The difference is
> that in IRV the successive preferences are brought into play only on the
> stated contingency; Borda tries to sum all the preferences
> instantly into one value; Condorcet perhaps lies somewhere between these two
> extremes, depending on the sequence of events in the
> individual count.
Out of all this I see very little possible use for differences:
All three want the same information about ranking.
Borda extracts numeric rank information - which it can get from the
same ballots.
Condorcet can and should permit equal ranking of multiple candidates
- presumably foreign to the others.
>
> James Gilmour
--
[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
