Are strong enough to dream of winning - therefore voting Nader first, just in case.
Hate Bush - therefore voting him last.
Like what Condorcet does - agreeing with them that Kerry should win for being liked better than Bush.
See IRV, treating Nader as a spoiler, failing to declare Kerry the winner.
The words below bother me:
Seems like what afflicts IRV here is properly called a spoiler.
Condorcet spoiler problems, if any, therefore differ from IRV's.On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:47:26 -0500 I wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:06:23 -0500 Eric Gorr wrote:
At 7:44 AM -0800 11/12/04, Justin Sampson wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Eric Gorr wrote:
> Well, it will cause IRV to fail the Independence of Clones Criterion and
thereby be subject to a spoiler effect again.
Doesn't IRV suffer from spoiler effects anyway?
Depends.
The method itself passes the ICC, so spoilers cannot come from there.
It, of course, fails IIA (as all ranked ballot methods do), so spoilers in this context still exist. Of course, since no ranked ballot methods pass IIA, talking about spoilers in this context is not very interesting.
Are there more directions from which spoilers can appear? I am currently not aware of any.
I do not keep up with the alphabet soup, but IRV and Condorcet disagree as to winner in the following, and I see Nader as a spoiler for IRV:
40 Bush 35 Nader, Kerry 25 Kerry
Condorcet sees 35 Nader as ignorable and then 60 Kerry vs 40 Bush
IRV discards 25 Kerry; then sees 40 Bush vs 35 Nader.
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026 Do to no one what you would not want done to you. If you want peace, work for justice.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
