Dave Ketchum wrote: > So you insist on leaving out my message, making the example empty.
I wouldn't call the raw numbers in your example "empty." In fact, I basically agree with your interpretation of them, with or without the accompanying backstory. I'm simply trying to provide the details of how I think many IRV supporters would interpret those numbers. > So, having left out my message, you dream up your own, to support your > different goal. Yes. Bill Clark wrote: >> (And to be clear, no I don't buy into that argument. But I think many >> IRV supporters genuinely do. And I don't think they're "stupid" for >> thinking the way they do, they just have a different set of opinions >> as to what's most important in selecting representatives.) > I interpret that paragraph as saying these IRV backers need educating. Not if you mean to imply that they're simply ignorant of the alternatives. Certainly some IRV backers are that way, and they generally respond well when introduced to various other voting systems besides IRV. But the ones I had in mind are those who genuinely feel that candidates supported by a dedicated minority of the voters are preferable to ones with broader but less intense appeal. I don't think that's really an education issue, but maybe I'm wrong. > It is COMMON for major issues such as abortion, gun control, or drug > wars to divide a population into two groups, and then for one or both > groups to have disagreements over minor issues. Yes, but your numbers don't just reflect those situations -- they also reflect situations in which there is a candidate with broad but weak general appeal. What's more, the situations you do describe can also be reflected (and some would argue more realistically) by numbers such as these: 40 A 29 B,C 31 C,B The point I'm trying to make is that there are multiple competing interpretations of the numbers, and what type of system you support will have a great impact on which interpretations you see as "realistic" and which you see as "implausible." You asked how IRV supporters justify a certain outcome, and I showed that one way was by rejecting your backstory and interpretation as implausible and providing a competing interpretation of their own, for the very same numbers. > The story has to matter - I offered one to back my beliefs; you used a > different one to back disagreeing. That's exactly right. That's also what happens quite frequently in debates with IRV supporters -- certain stories (or even entire examples, numbers and all) are rejected by one side as "implausible" and replaced by another. Consider again the "Condorcet ignores depth of support" example from the IRV camp: 49 A:10,D:1 (votes A,D) 26 B:10,D:1 (votes B,D) 25 C:10,D:1 (votes C,D) A typical (and I happen to think reasonable) reply from the Condorcet side is that these numbers are entirely unrealistic, since they're just screaming out for a better centrist candidate to join the race (because D is so easy to beat.) *Both* sides in the debate are guilty of rejecting stories that don't fit into their way of looking at things. The stories *do* matter, and they often point to a difference of opinion that goes well beyond the strictly technical differences between voting systems. -Bill Clark -- Ralph Nader for US President in 2004 http://votenader.org/ ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
