Quoting James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Eric Gorr Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 1:31 PM >> James Gilmour wrote: >> > Jan Kok Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 4:07 AM >> >> Yes, I agree that the election rules affect how people vote. >> >> But, unsophisticated IRV supporters are not aware that there >> >> can be incentives to vote insincerely in IRV elections, or >> >> may believe that IRV and Condorcet will always, or almost >> >> always, choose the same winner. If we can find a >> >> counterexample (even if somewhat flawed because the ballots >> >> were intended to be counted by IRV and not Condorcet), it may >> >> wake up some IRV supporters and get them to at least >> >> question, "If these two methods can get different results, >> >> which method gives the better result?" >> > >> > The answer to this question, for most electors, will >> almost > certainly be context dependent. Suppose we have a >> Condorcet > winner who is not the IRV winner, because that >> candidate is > placed third in first preference votes but is >> "everyone's > second choice". If that CW is only a little >> way behind the two > front-runners (35%, 34%, 31%), the CW >> would probably be > politically acceptable to most electors. >> But if that CW has > very little first preference support >> compared to the two > front-runners (48%, 47%, 5%), I >> suspect the CW would not be > politically acceptable to most >> electors. I can see merits in > both IRV and Condorcet, but >> this is a practical aspect of > voting reform that very few >> advocates of Condorcet methods have > attempted to address. >> >> Your entire argument is based on one assumption after >> another, so I will respond in kind. > >> From your tone, I gather you reject or dispute whatever assumptions >> you think you can see in what I wrote. > >> If everyone's first choice would lead to Civil War, but everyone's >> second choice is the compromise that would avoid it, then it is at least >> possible that everyone would accept the result rather then die. > > In this extreme case, you MAY be right. But sadly, recent and > current examples from around the world provide evidence > to the contrary as the factions tear each other and their countries > apart rather than accept any compromise.
Sorry...needed to add: Furthermore, given my assumption, my direct response would be that in these recent and current examples it is at least possible there has yet to be a compromise that would be everyone's second choice, allowing them to pick something more acceptable then death. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info