On 30.9.2012, at 16.06, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: > On 09/30/2012 11:47 AM, Juho Laatu wrote: >> On 30.9.2012, at 11.56, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: >> >>> In practice, that means: is cloneproof, passes independence of as >>> much as possible (independence of Smith-dominated alternatives, >>> say), and is monotone. >> >> These criteria could be one set of definitions of a good (sincere) >> winner. I usually do not assume the first two ones since there may be >> good (sincere) winners also outside those criteria. Monotonicity is >> maybe more natural in the Condorcet category. > > There might be, but then again, there may also be better outcomes when the > method does not get confused by vote-splitting problems (e.g. the Korean > election).
Bad clone related problems must be corrected, but different criteria may conflict, and one may get similar votes and matrices with or without real clones (= politically similar candidates). Therefore one may also meet the clone related criteria "well enough" in order to respect better some other requirements. > In my opinion, even if that works, it won't have the desired effect. > Australia shows this. Maybe Austratlia shows that things could fail. But one could be also lucky, and Australia is a quite specific case. One must try and hope that things will work out. I believe most countries have some problems in their voting system, and usually they could be corrected, but they are not since there is not enough "political will". > So the difference between the third and first category is, I think, that the > third is about what's good for society in general, while the first is about > what makes the voters (and candidates) accept the outcome. The more democracy > is about having the losers accept that they've lost, the more important the > first category becomes with respect to the third, for instance. Maybe one more first category related explanation behind promoting IRV is that the serial elimination rule looks like a fair fight (where the weakest fighters are fairly kicked out of the fight) to many voters :-). Juho ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
