MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
Who is wronged in Kevin's MMPO bad-example?
-------------------------------------------
Yesterday I asked how bad C can be, in that example, if nearly all
the A voters are indifferent between B and C, and the only one not
indifferent prefers C to B.
I'd like to additionally ask who is wronged in that example. Someone
who is indifferent between the winner and the other top candidate?
Hardly.
Surely the "wrongness" of a result must be judged by whether or not
someone is wronged by it.
Kevin's MMPO bad-example, MDDTR's Mono-Add-Plump failure, are
Plurality-prejudice aesthetic matters.
If some candidate gets more first place votes than another candidate
gets any place votes, it seems only reasonable to not elect the latter.
Call it aesthetic if you want, but anything that breaks it that
flagrantly will seem really unintuitive to the voters.
I'm not saying the FPTP candidate should win. The "than another
candidate gets any place votes" part makes absolutely no judgement as to
the weights of the voters' preferences, only that first place votes
have greater value than the equal-at-bottom of truncation.
So you ask who's wronged in the example. I would say that the combined
group of the A-first and B-first voters are wronged, because you elect a
candidate that's at the bottom of the entire group's ranks rather than a
candidate that's at the bottom of only half. Pleasing the two A=C and
B=C voters is not worth 9999 votes.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
