On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Michael Ossipoff <[email protected]> wrote: > Here's Steve's proposed fix: > > After an election, any candidate can withdraw from the election, and > call for a new count of the ballots, with his name deleted from all > the ballots. > > I liked JITW, because it saves FBC-failing methods from their FBC failure. .
Maybe. You could end up with a "chicken" dilemma. For example, if there are 3 candidates in a condorcet loop. If either of the 2 non-winners withdraws, then the other loser becomes the winner. In a L - C - R situation, if R wins, then if L or C withdraws to the other one becomes winner. (assuming R is not the condorect winner) C with 5% of the first choice vote would have a hard time justifying not withdrawing. He could say that his supporters consider L + R equally bad, so there is no benefit to his supporters in not withdrawing. That would probably lose him the 2.5% of the vote that was L leaning, in the next election. > In group-reply e-mail, Steve and I proposed JITW IRV to IRVists. They > rejected it, claiming that it was completely unacceptable to let a > candidate withdraw. They seemed to feel that a candidate's withdrawal, > in JITW, would somehow be a betrayal to the people who'd voted for > that candidate. It would increase the complexity of IRV. Complexity is regularly used as an all-purpose objection to most non-plurality voting system. Would you be intending multiple passes, or a single withdrawal round? So, - IRV count - one or more candidates withdraw - final IRV count or looping, with a full recount being triggered by each additional withdrawal? With 1 withdrawal stage, it would possibly get past the complexity objection (esp if IRV was supported in the first place). However, I am not entirely convinced that candidates would put their voters first in such a situation. Better to play chicken and probably lose than withdraw and definitely lose. This is also a problem with Asset voting. Maybe the withdrawal decision could be taken by someone other than the candidate themselves. Also, if a threshold was added then you could sometimes have only one round. IRV count (transfers below the threshold ignored) - if the winner gets > 50% of the ballots cast, winner wins without a second stage Withdrawal stage IRV count 2 (transfers below threshold included) ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
