2011/10/31 David L Wetzell <[email protected]> > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Andy Jennings < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> David, >> >> My strongest feeling about your recently proposed system is that the >> "three" is so arbitrary. >> >> What if there are eight candidates running, and I really like five of >> them? Then approving three might not be enough. >> > > Most people aren't as politically keen as you are. We need to design > rules for the typical voter, not ourselves. I think the number of > contested seats plus two is a good rule of thumb... > > >> I know you said that real elections only seem to have four strong >> candidates, but the current republican primary seems to have at least seven >> totally legitimate candidates in the race. >> > > define totally legit? From a wonk perspective or a hack perspective? > There's three realistic candidates right now, and a bunch of me > threes/fours/what-nots > . > >> Both 2008 primaries were the same way. Sure, the press is constantly >> trying to whittle it down to about four. But why should we let the press >> do the whittling? Shouldn't that be done by the voting system in some way? >> Should we use a different system for these larger elections? >> > > dlw: It's not just a media thing, it's also a matter of cost-benefit > analysis. When there's only one winner, it just isn't cost-effective for > there to be lots and lots of candidates. > > My point is based on reality as it is, not as I'd like it to be. We need > to gear our reforms to reality, not our wishful thinking about how > elections ought to be... > >> >> If there are only three candidates running, then the AV step does >> nothing. If there are four candidates running, then the AV step is really >> anti-plurality. >> > > dlw: I'm saying that there can be more than three or four candidates on > the ballot, but there tends to be 3 or 4 serious candidates by virtue of > economics of elections. .. > >> >> And as Kathy pointed out, you'd still better tell people that it's not >> safe to put their favorite first. >> > > dlw: That'd be silly. If you do the math, while it's possible that there > could be a non-monotonicity problem in the unlikely event of a close three > way election, it's still less likely than the more typical outcome where it > makes sense to vote your preferences. And so long as the odds favor the > typical outcome, the possibility of a sour grapes situation are not > consequential. It does not rationally change voter behavior. >
In nonpartisan/monopartisan elections, including party primaries, there is unlikely to be a nonmonotonicity problem. In partisan elections where more-or-less one-dimensional spectra are the norm, nonmonotonicity is a very real threat. JQ
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
