Kathy, I ask that you stop smearing me on this (and other) discussion lists. I did not alter any standard definition of "spoilers." Webster's online for example defines it as: "1. A candidate with no chance of winning but who may draw enough votes to prevent one of the leading candidates from winning."
This means a spoiler is a non-leading candidate with almost no chance of winning (I think the term "minor" is a fair way of stating that concisely) and not "one of the leading candidates." Note also that the concept of having a "chance" to win suggests the term can be applied prospectively, prior to knowing what the ballots reveal. Kurt Wright, being perceived as a likely winners and who was in first place in the initial tally had an EXCELLENT chance of winning, and almost did in the runoff, and thus does not meet the standard definition of a "spoiler." I will refrain from the "majority" discussion, as that is off topic. Terry Bouricius ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kathy Dopp" <kathy.d...@gmail.com> To: <election-methods@lists.electorama.com> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 4:32 PM Subject: Re: [EM] I need an example of Condorcet method being subjected > From: "Terry Bouricius" <ter...@burlingtontelecom.net> > To: "Jonathan Lundell" <jlund...@pobox.com>, "Juho" > <juho4...@yahoo.co.uk> > > Jonathan makes an important point. The term "spoiler" means a minor > candidate with a small percentage of the vote, who changes which of the > other candidates wins by running. But Kathy and some others wish to > expand > the definition to include a front-runner. (Note that these IRV opponents > refer to the top plurality vote-getter who narrowly lost the runoff in > Burlington, Kurt Wright, as a "spoiler" who prevented the candidate in > third place from winning. This is a dynamic worthy of analysis, but the > word "spoiler" is never used by the media or political scientists when > describing the plurality leader. > > Terry Bouricius > Thanks for all the information re. Condorcet cycles and the unlikely cases of spoilers in Condorcet method of counting rank choice votes from Juho and Robert. Terry, You cleverly conveniently change all the definitions whenver it is necessary to make yourself and Fairytale Vote right on the "facts". Let's see what some of them are: A spoiler is *not* according to you, a nonwinning candidate whose presence in the election changes who would otherwise be the winner, but only a particular type of spoiler that is "a minor candidate". A majority of voters is *not* according to you, a majority out of all voters who cast ballots, but only out of voters whose ballots have not been exhausted by the time the final IRV counting round is done. A majority candidate, according to you, is *not* the Condorcet winner who a majority (and indeed the most#) of voters favor above all other candidates, but only a candidate who wins a majority in round one, or in the final IRV counting round out of unexhausted ballots after the Condorcet winner and other more majority-favorite winners are eliminated. Terry, redefine any word you want to and you make yourself right, even if most people do not agree with your definitions. It's a good strategy to mislead the public like Fairytale Vote has done. Kathy -- Kathy Dopp Town of Colonie, NY 12304 phone 518-952-4030 cell 518-505-0220 http://utahcountvotes.org http://electionmathematics.org http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/ Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf Voters Have Reason to Worry http://utahcountvotes.org/UT/UtahCountVotes-ThadHall-Response.pdf Checking election outcome accuracy --- Post-election audit sampling http://electionmathematics.org/em-audits/US/PEAuditSamplingMethods.pdf ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
