On May 9, 2010, at 1:52 AM, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On May 8, 2010, at 2:14 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
so Terry, in 2009 Burlington, did 495 of 1513 voters that marked
their ballots as W>M>K (perhaps with some other candidates in
between) experience LNH?
i misremembered a number. it's 429 voters of the 1513 W>M>K voters
(in a electorate of nearly 9000) that caused the election of their
least favorite choice simply by marking their favorite candidate as
their 1st choice.
Only if you redefine LNH.
later i called it "LNH-lite" (similar to IIA is "spoiler-lite",
another problem the 2009 election suffered). our political interests
are broader than just getting our favorite candidate elected.
sometimes we want to prevent a terrible candidate from being elected.
the classic strategic problem (the strategy called "compromising")
that IRV was supposed to protect us from was the risk of actually
causing the election the worst candidate because we voted for our
favorite candidate (rather than the acceptable and electable
candidate). the classic "You can't vote for Nader because you'll
elect Bush by doing so" problem. the GOP Prog-haters in Burlington
discovered that exactly that happened to them (if you turn the
ideology around) in 2009. if IRV had survived, what would these folks
be thinking at the polls for the next mayoral election: "In this town
full of liberals, I gotta choose between Liberal and More Liberal,
because if I vote for the guy I really like, More Liberal gets elected."
how about expanding the definition of Later-No-Harm (can we find a
name for it?) to include later harming one's political interest (not
*just* their favorite candidate) by sincerely voting their
conscience? this was advertised as the main reason for this election
reform. what should we call it?
--
r b-j [email protected]
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
