> James Gilmour wrote: > > Now consider: > 49 A<C<B > 48 B<C<A > 3 C<B<A > > IRV winner = B; CW winner = C. > > Mike replied: > > You've used "<" where you meant ">".
Thanks, Mike, for pointing out my mistake. The two examples should, of course, have been: 35 A>C>B 33 B>C>A 32 C>B>A IRV winner = B; CW winner = C 49 A>C>B 48 B>C>A 3 C>B>A IRV winner = B; CW winner = C. Incidentally -- It is interesting that several others have commented on these examples without, apparently, "seeing" these mistakes. On my part, was it just 12 stupid typos, the effect of the ">" in the margin, or a Freudian slip of much greater significance? END of digression! > You continued: > I doubt very much whether most electors would accept C as the > "winner" if this were an election for > Sate Governor, much less for a directly elected President of > the USA. If anyone has evidence to the > contrary I'd like very much to see it. > > I reply: > Ok, I'll give you evidence to the contrary: It's in your rankings. > > 52 people prefer C to B. If B and C ran in a 2-candidate > election, then, > unless you believe that those people will vote against their > own preference between those two, C will win, 52 to 48. This is not evidence, just a restatement of what is the self-evident outcome of the Condorcet election. And it was not a 2-candidate election with only B and C. What I am saying is that I believe, based on my daily involvement with politicians, party activists, campaigners for voting reform and campaigners against voting reform, that there will be a general reaction against the result and the voting system when they see the CW outcome of the 49/48/3 vote. They will understand all the intellectual arguments for the CW, but in these particular circumstances, they will still say "there is something wrong here" - "this result is not acceptable". This is my interpretation of the "intuitive responses" or "gut reactions" of those I encounter in practical politics. I do not have any attitudinal survey data to confirm my view; it is just my interpretation of the political responses I have encountered. But I should be very pleased to see any such data that show my interpretation is wrong. It would be very re-assuring to know that the Condorcet Winners would be accepted in major public elections where those CWs had first preference support of only tiny proportions of those who voted, just a few percent. James ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
