On 10/31/11 2:31 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
2011/10/31 robert bristow-johnson <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
even Rob Ritchie cannot continue to claim that IRV worked just
fine, or better than all other alternatives, in that case.
Richie has claimed to me that
1) Even if Approval had elected the Democrat in Burlington, it would
have resulted in Approval being repealed, because the Democrat was a
poor candidate who deserved to lose and had a minority of strong
supporters.
now that is incendiary. :-\ because there is content in that which
is independent of the election method. if the Dem candidate was
elected, most of the Progs would be satisfied and far more of the GOP
would have been than were with the outcome of the IRV election. this
Dem (Montroll) would have, admittedly, been the centrist (which i don't
see to be a problem ihherently) but centrisity is not a sufficient
reason for choosing an election method. the reason to elect the
Condorcet winner is that this is the candidate favored by the voters
over any other candidate when the voters are asked to choose between the
two.
nonetheless, most politically-inclined Burlington residents that i have
talked with, both sides of the liberal/conservative line, feel that the
"poor candidate who deserved to lose and had a minority of strong
supporters", a fiscally-responsible geek, would have been far better for
the city than the Prog who was re-elected.
i hope that you're accurately portraying Rob here. now, he *has* told
me that IRV is the only reform that is politically realistic that has
the best hope of electing the Condorcet winner. so for him to associate
IRV with Condorcet and to disassociate IRV from Approval BECAUSE THEY
ELECT THE SAME CANDIDATE (good or bad) at least in Burlington in 2009,
is, to say the least, disingenuous.
2) Approval would have elected the Republican in Burlington. (This is
to me not implausible; it could result from a chicken-dilemma
situation, and the numbers in Burlington were close enough that it
wouldn't take too much for this to happen).
i've never felt that Approval is at all immune to burying tactics (by
not voting for clones who are not your favorite) and if voters mostly
bullet-voted for their fav, it would also devolve to plurality. the GOP
candidate was the plurality winner (33%) of the first-choice votes. the
Prog had 29%, and the Dem had 25%.
2a) That would have resulted in Approval being repealed.
i don't think that Approval is likely to be adopted in the first place.
Of course, if you combine these hypotheticals with what actually
happened, it appears that Richie thinks that repeal of reform was
inevitable after a contentious election like Burlington. Which could
be true, but seems to me to be remarkably convenient to the pro-IRV
stance.
well, they *are* trying to avoid "inconvenient truths" regarding IRV
that the Burlington 2009 made a textbook example of. by not electing
the Condorcet winner, it caused it to fail being spoiler-less, that
means it transferred the burden of strategic or tactical voting from the
(liberal) majority (who didn't have to make a painful choice between the
Prog and Dem) to the most conservative minority group (i like to call
them the "GOP who are Prog-haters") who found out that by marking their
favorite candidate #1, they actually caused the election of their least
favorite ("In this liberal town I gotta choose between Liberal and More
Liberal, because if I vote for the guy I really like, More Liberal gets
elected"). and it also demonstrated non-monotonicity and IRV is
inherently not precinct-summable (which transparency advocates care about).
--
r b-j [email protected]
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
