On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 01:57 am, Eric Gorr wrote: > How would you respond to: > > http://www.progress.org/2003/altman06.htm
Here's how I replied: ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: Flawed Counterargument For Instant Runoff Voting Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 04:35 pm From: Peter Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Todd, In reply to your article at http://www.progress.org/2003/altman06.htm: > If the whole idea behind democratic elections is for the most-favored > candidate to win, why should we be concerned if the least-favored > candidate is eliminated? If voters take strategy into account then there is a crucial difference between "most-favored" and "most-voted-for". If there wasn't then the whole field of electoral method theory would be much simpler. IRV sometimes rewards insincere voting. I would like an electoral system that lets me honestly rank my preferences, ignoring the polls, free from any fear that I will regret the way I voted as soon as the results are announced. That why I prefer Condorcet over IRV (and either of those over plurality). > Is a voting system just only insofar as it serves the > author's partisan bias? I'm sorry but that line only proves that you misunderstand the author's argument. I suggest you replace the party names with 'A', 'B', and 'C' and reread it - and the rest of the site! Cheers, -- Peter Maxwell (non-partisan geoist, citizen of a PR-using country and resident of an IRV-using country). ------------------------------------------------------- ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
