On Jan 10, 2010, at 10:23 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Jan 10, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
This is a point that bears repeating, since it doesn't seem to sink
in. It's much to easy to casually assume that ballots cast under
one system (in this case IRV) can be recounted under some other
rule with the assumption that voters would have cast the same (or
at least equivalent) ballots under that other rule.
but i think that it is reasonable to "casually" assume that the
ranked-order ballots marked for IRV would, for the most part, be the
same if the election were to be decided by Condorcet rules. that,
plus the Freedom of Information laws, allows us to say what would
have happened with Condorcet rules. the tabulation rules are
different, but the ballots are the same.
I believe the voters would have voted in the same way in Condorcet.
That is because they did not understand how IRV works nor how
Condorcet works (or at least they didn't understand what strategic
opportunities there are). They were told that in IRV you just rank the
candidates sincerely, and that's what they probably did. I have not
heard of any (IRV specific) strategic advices that would have been
given to the voters before the election.
So I believe the votes were quite sincere rankings. In the next IRV
election things might be a bit different.
Juho
--
r b-j [email protected]
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
