Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net> writes: > On 15/12/08 at 15:28 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I suspect this is because the obvious "please, dear deity, stop talking >> about things constantly and just do them" vote ranks 3 above 2 above 1, >> so I doubt many votes transferred from 3 to 1 when 3 was eliminated. > There's no such transfer in plurality voting (where you only vote for > one option). That transfer happens in instant-runoff voting, but I > didn't compare our condorcet results with IRV results. That's not easy > to do accurately because you can't rank several options at the same > level with IRV, so you would have to ignore a lot of ballots. I suspect I confused things by not being sufficiently clear. I meant that the difference between the Condorcet outcome and the plurality outcome was probably due to the 3>2>1 voting pattern leading to a lot of transfers from 3 to 2 in Condorcet, so although 1 wins plurality, 2 ends up with more preference votes once 3 is eliminated. (And by choice 2, I mean the one listed as choice 2 on the voting page, which is shown first before choice 1 and is also known as amendment A.) It's the standard case for Condorcet producing a different outcome than plurality: the compromise is less popular by itself, but is much more popular with a minority of the voters who would prefer some other choice. It happens quite a bit in Hugo voting (IRV, if I recall correctly), where the leader in first place votes often doesn't win. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org