On Nov 13, 2010, at 12:55 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
This reads as a valuable demonstration of the value of Condorcet.
it would be even more informative if, in the semi-final round between
Perata, Quan, and Kaplan, we knew how the 2nd-choice votes of Perata
and Quan voters broke down. perhaps, like in Burlington 2009, Kaplan
was the CW. that information is on the ballots, but is obscured in
these IRV results.
also, similarly to Burlington 2009, the plurality leader was leading
in all rounds except defeated only in the final round. and, almost
verbatim, the IRV loser (and plurality winner) complains that his loss
is due to "gaming the system".
Here we have the pro- & anti- Perata halves of Oakland competing.
If they win, the anti-Perata half are also competing as to their
minor differences.
well, perhaps they are, but from these results we do not know how the
anti-Perata portion preferred Kaplan vs. Quan (their "minor
difference").
This is only intelligent competition, NOT gaming.
In IRV, order of processing the same ballots would differ.
Dave, i don't get what you mean here, at all. all we know is that
nearly 2000 more voters preferred Quan over Perata. with IRV rules we
would have gotten to this independent of the order of processing. we
don't know if and by how many voters may have preferred Kaplan over
either.
First decide which half of the top rank of the antis wins the right
for total antis to compete with pro-Peratas.
Since they had more top ranks, they are likely stronger as total
antis, but this is only odds, not certainty.
Agreed Perata would have won in Plurality BECAUSE voters cannot
express their desires as completely there.
i've always considered it odd that the anti-IRV partisans like Kathy
Dopp complain so much about the opaqueness of the San Francisco IRV
that had a zillion candidates but only 3 levels of ranking (4 if you
count all unranked candidates as tying for last place on one's
ballot). with the simple vote-for-one traditional ballot, that is
precisely like IRV with ONE level of ranking, even MORE opaque to the
contingency desires of voters.
i'm gonna turn off my Dopp and Abd filters for a while to see what
they might have to say (i hope they don't abuse it) but i would be
also interested in reading what anyone else has to say about this.
how does *anyone* justify, with a straight face, that Perata is the
more democratic choice than Quan? again, perhaps Kaplan would be even
*more* of a democratic choice (if she was the CW), but without the
individual ballot data, we cannot tell.
--
r b-j [email protected]
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
