James G.--
You wrote:
Nowhere in my comments will you find any such suggestion. Do not attribute to me comments I have
not made.
I reply:
I'm not saying that you advocate IRV, but, if you do, and if part of your argument for IRV over Condorcet is your claim that people won't like a low-favoriteness CW winning, and that even the majority who prefer him to candidate Y would rather elect Y than the CW, because the CW isn't very favorite--if you use that as an argument for advocating IRV,then yes, that means that you claim that the expressed wishes of that majority should be disregarded because you believe that they would change their mind. But, as I said, I can't say for sure whethe ror not you advocate IRV, without checking the archives.
You continued:
What I did say is that I believe, based on my experience as a practical reformer, that the CW result
and the voting system is likely to be rejected by politicians and the general public alike if they
experience a 49/48/3 election. I have no problem with the CW being "more representative" or "better
representative" of the voters than the IRV winner in both the 35/33/32 election and in the 49/48/3
election. But that was not was not the point I was making. Nor am I arguing against the use of the
Condorcet voting system. I just genuinely believe our UK electorate (and probably yours) would
reject the Condorcet voting system if they experienced a 49/49/3 result.
I reply:
Fine, but that's a speculation.
You continued:
I ask again for any
evidence that would show I am mistaken in my view of the likely response of the electorate. NB I
want real evidence, either from real public elections or from elector attitude surveys.
I reply:
A speculation remains only a speculation even when no one has proved that it isn't so. Obviously it would take a Condorcet election to prove that your claim isn't so. But, when you claim that a majority who prefer the CW to Y are going to start liking Y better than the CW because the CW isn't a big favorite, then, with a strange claim like that, the burden of proof is on you. Without proof, your speculation doesn't sound very likely.
But actually I do have evidence, from real public elections and from elector attitude surveys, that voters prefer their compromise to their last choice even though their compromise isn't very favorite. I gave that evidence in my previous message: Everyone who votes Democrat says that they have to hold their nose in order to do so. Many or most are disgusted with the sleazy, bribetaking Democrat--but they still staunchly prefer him/her to the Republican. That preference is completely unaffected by the fact that their sleaze-compromise is anything but a favorite to anyone.
They're so disgusted with "the 2 choices", that they almost don't even want to vote (and many don't vote), but, unless they don't vote, they vote for the Democrat, against the Republican. I've never heard of someone saying "Bush is favorite to more people than Mondale [or Kerry] is, and so that means that Bush is better than Mondale [or Kerry]."
The evidence contradicts your speculation.
However, of course I've only heard U.S. voters on those matters. I of course don't have evidence about British voters. Say what you want about how people feel about unfavorite compromises in England, but when you make your speculation about voters here, you're mistaken.
Nothing I say here is intended to compare the good judgement of voters in the U.S. and England.
But, the judgement of U.S. voters isn't quite as bad as people might think, because I remind you that we didn't elect Bush.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
