James Gilmour said:
No, there is no sophistry in my argument.
Call it what you want. You're saying we shoudn't respect the voted wishes of
those people because you think that they might change their preferences.
Does it occur to you that that is a rather weak argument for disregarding
someone's voted wishes?
Though you're not at all clear about what you mean, you seem to be implying
that you mean that when people find out that C is favorite of fewest, then
people who prefer C to B will feel a need to follow the herd, and the fact
that C is favorite of fewest will make those people begin to prefer B to C,
because B has a higher Plurality score than C does. Whatever reasons made
those people prefer C to B, they'll consider Plurality score to be a more
important thing to judge the candidates by,and so now they'll think that B
must be better than C. Is that pretty much how your reasoning goes?
You're essentially saying that those preferences shouldn't be respected,
since the people wouldn't actually express them if they had thought they
You then said:
No. that is not what I am saying. I am suggesting they would vote sincerely
but then reject the
outcome of their own actions when they saw the consequences and all the
You mean the dire consequence that someone whom they prefer to B mighrt win
instead of B? :-)
What is "all the evidence"? The fact that C doesn't get a high Plurality
score? They're going to judge candidates by their Pluralitly score instead
of by the practical criteria which initially informed their preferences?
I am also
suggesting that if they fully understood that such outcomes were possible,
they would reject a
voting system that could produce such an outcome.
One issue at a time, if you don't mind. But now you're saying that if they
knew that Condorcet would elect someone whom they prefer more, that would
cause them to reject Condorcet and choose IRV, because it would elect
someone whom they prefer less.
Post by James Gilmour
This is about more than voting arithmetic and measures for identifying
"the most representative candidate". It brings in systems of values
which >are expressed in different dimensions from those used to measure
I don't understand this.
James was talking gibberish, and I doubt that anyone could know what he was
trying to say.
That is exactly the problem. NB nothing personal, just a general
observation about much of the
discussion on this list.
What is exactly the problem? The fact that people don't know what you mean
when you talk gibberish, and then fail to explain what you meant?
Are you trying to say that people might not vote in a way that pairwise
counting measures meaningfully? If so, could you justify that?
...but all my political experience leads me to believe that such a result
would provoke a
massive public outcry and demands for immediate changes to the voting
If you want pubic resenrtment of the outcome, then let IRV avoidably elect
someone over whom a majority have expressed preference for someone else.
That majority loser whom IRV elects will never have the legitimacy that the
CW would have.
As others have appreciated, such a response operates on a different
dimension from that used to
assess "representativity" as defined by the comparisons of Condorcet, IRV,
etc. You may think this
contrary, but we know from political surveys that real people are quite
capable of holding contrary
views and even mutually incompatible views. So while they might accept the
CW on one dimension,
they will reject the outcome of the election on another dimension. I don't
have a neat definition
for that dimension, but it is characterised by the reactions I suggested in
the two different
scenarios, ie accept CW if 32/35/33, but reject CW if 3/49/48.
So you justify your prediction by a "dimension", for which you don't have a
defiintition, except that it is characterized by the prediction which you
use it to justify.
You say that there would be an "outcry" when Condorcet elected C, in your
example. Who is going to do the outrcrying? The majority who prefer C to B,
or the majority who prefer C to A? :-)
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now!
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info