--- Begin Message ---
Hello List
Recently there have been a large number of postings regarding something called the turkey problem- indifferent/poor candidates winning as the least worst choice in a condorcet ballet.
Due to the nature of the Condorcet method- which considers lower preferences before the fate of higher preferences is decided- condorcet would appear to me to be a turkey electoral system.
The fundamental difference as regards the results between condorcet and irving is that condorcet allows the election of candidates of candidates with little or no first or higher preference support. It is these candidates who are likely to be the turkeys.
Take the following example:
Candidate A takes distinct policy positions on a range of issues, because of this he gains a great many enthusiastic supporters but also a great many vehement opponents.
Candidate B takes opposing positions to candidate A, because of this she also gains many supporters and many opponents.
Candidate C does nothing, says nothing and offends nobody.
The votes are cast as follows:
AC 498
BC 497
CA 3
CB 2
Under condorcet candidate C as the least objectionable wins.
It occurs to me that the best way to win a single seat condorcet election is to stand on a platform of bland, vague and generalised policies that nobody could disagree with or be offended by.
Politics is fundamentally about disagreement, about different people supporting positions and policies that are different to each other and often in opposition to each other. Compromise and consensus are good things but not at any cost.Condorcet appears as a ' compromise at any cost' electoral system. It will elect candidates whose only merit is that they offend no-one.
Irving also elects compromise candidates, however under irving a candidate must get a reasonable proportion of first/higher preference support to reach next stage of the election and win. A candidate cannot win by being everybody's last preference.
Compromise candidates who attract a reasonable level of higher preference support are probably good people to elect. They have said or done something to make people positively support them. Compromise candidates who attract little or no higher preference support, who have said and done nothing and whose sole merit is that they offend and upset nobody are probably not good people to elect.
Irving elects the first type of compromise candidate but not the second, condorcet elects both. This is why irving is better than condorcet.
David Gamble
--- End Message ---
