On 2/8/12 1:25 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
On 8.2.2012, at 7.33, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
...
if it's not the majority that rule, what's the alternative?
I'm not aware of any good alternatives to majority rule in competitive
two-candidate elections (with some extra assumptions that rule out random
ballot etc.).
Juho
thank you Juho, for stipulating to the obvious. i will confess that i
am astonished at the resistance displayed here at the EM list to this
obvious fact.
so, we all know how Condorcet (i believe) extends this logically to a
multi-candidate race, right? if Candidate A is the best candidate to be
awarded office, that means that Candidate A is better than Candidate B.
it also means that Candidate A is better than Candidate C. if Candidate
A is the best candidate, it means that no other candidate is better than
Candidate A.
so, how do we determine who is better? we could make them take an exam
to show how much they know about job that the elected office entails.
or we could make the candidates arm wrestle. but, in a democracy, the
way we determine that one candidate is better than some other is that we
ask the electorate. sorta like Pilate asking the crowd to choose
between Jesus and Barabbas. the ranked ballot tells us who the voter
chooses given any pair of choices.
it's simple. when a Condorcet winner exists, to elect *anyone* other
than the Condorcet winner is the same as awarding office to the loser in
a simple Two-candidate, Simple majority, One-person-one-vote election
and i cannot see a *single* justification for doing that. the "weak CW"
argument does not cut it at all.
i'm willing to let this rest again for a while. until someone else digs
up the corpse.
--
r b-j [email protected]
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
