Hell no, FPP is _not_ monotonic. If one ranks one's real preference
first rather than one's "lesser evil" [sic], a repugnant candidate can
win. Tell me that's not nonmonotonicity.
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
>
> EM list--
>
> I forgot to add another advantage of FPP over IRV: Motonicity.
>
> Monotonicity failure can be really funny:
>
> Newspaper story the morning after an IRV Presidential election:
>
> "President Moe has failed in his re-election bid. The only difference
> in the rankings, between this time and the previous election, won
> by Moe, is that this time some people moved Shemp from 1st place
> to last place, when some of his secret campaign contributions were
> discovered. President-elect Shemp gave his acceptance speech at
> 1:00, Eastern Time."
>
> The above story is based on an example by Professor Steven Brams,
> in which a candiate wins because some people move him from 1st place
> to last place.
>
> Of course I realize that when that happens, the voters involved might
> not consider it funny. Obviously no one but a CVD IRVie could
> consider IRV an acceptable method.
>
> Craig asked whether CVD is hiding IRV's problems, or whether CVD
> is merely ignorant of them. I'd say it's a little of both.
>
> In the California LWV study, the IRVies have a large presence on the
> study committee, maybe a majority. They have 3 IRV promoting articles
> at their study website, but so far have refused to put up an Approval
> article, though Approval is officially part of the study.
>
> Ray Bennett, one of the committee co-chairs, did say that they'd
> eventually add 1 article that would be divided between Approval and
> 2 multiwinner methods. In other words, IRV gets 3 articles, and
> Approval gets 1/3 of 1 article.
>
> Also, note that that mention of Approval would be written or chosen
> by IRVies, or members of the study committee that they dominate,
> while of course their IRV articles are also written by IRVies. So
> IRVies write the IRV articles and the Approval material.
>
> But, again, that's all academic anyway, since the IRVies have so
> far refused to include any Approval material at the website.
>
> It would seem that the CVD/CPR IRVies believe that IRV can't win
> honestly. I'd say they're right.
>
> That's a roundabout answer to Craig's question: Certainly it looks like
> the IRVies at CVC want to hide IRV's problems. IRVies have never been
> big fans of open equal discussion. Sleaze is a word that suggests
> itself.
>
> The California LWV's voting systems study looks like it's going to
> have all the legitimacy of a Ferdinand Marcos election.
>
> Craig asked if CVD is ignorant of IRV's problems. I think that's part of
> it too. IRVies have a tendency to misrepresent themselves as experts,
> but I'd say that they're pretty much entirely ignorant about single
> winner methods.
>
> However that doesn't mean that they aren't able to form an intent
> to conceal IRV's problems, or to push their inadequate proposal
> through without letting their oppostion be heard--as the LWV
> example shows.
>
> I paid $50 to join LWV for a year(LWV allows men to join), but this study
> farce is making it embarrassing to admit that I'm a member of LWV.
>
> So, in summation, I'd say that, with CVD/CPR, it's a combination
> of dishonesty and ignorance, and that the ignorance in no way
> diminishes or excuses the dishonesty.
>
> Mike Ossipoff
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> http://profiles.msn.com.
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I only said we'd make it across"
-"Road Trip"
