Not as much if there are only 3 candidates, according to Stephen Brams, a mathematician determined that in a close 3-way election with only 3 candidates that the odds of non-monotonicity mattering would be 20%. That's still 4-1 in favor of it not mattering and close 3-way elections are not common.
dlw On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.qu...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > 2011/10/31 David L Wetzell <wetze...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Andy Jennings < >> electi...@jenningsstory.com> wrote: >> >>> David, >>> >>> My strongest feeling about your recently proposed system is that the >>> "three" is so arbitrary. >>> >>> What if there are eight candidates running, and I really like five of >>> them? Then approving three might not be enough. >>> >> >> Most people aren't as politically keen as you are. We need to design >> rules for the typical voter, not ourselves. I think the number of >> contested seats plus two is a good rule of thumb... >> >> >>> I know you said that real elections only seem to have four strong >>> candidates, but the current republican primary seems to have at least seven >>> totally legitimate candidates in the race. >>> >> >> define totally legit? From a wonk perspective or a hack perspective? >> There's three realistic candidates right now, and a bunch of me >> threes/fours/what-nots >> . >> >>> Both 2008 primaries were the same way. Sure, the press is constantly >>> trying to whittle it down to about four. But why should we let the press >>> do the whittling? Shouldn't that be done by the voting system in some way? >>> Should we use a different system for these larger elections? >>> >> >> dlw: It's not just a media thing, it's also a matter of cost-benefit >> analysis. When there's only one winner, it just isn't cost-effective for >> there to be lots and lots of candidates. >> >> My point is based on reality as it is, not as I'd like it to be. We need >> to gear our reforms to reality, not our wishful thinking about how >> elections ought to be... >> >>> >>> If there are only three candidates running, then the AV step does >>> nothing. If there are four candidates running, then the AV step is really >>> anti-plurality. >>> >> >> dlw: I'm saying that there can be more than three or four candidates on >> the ballot, but there tends to be 3 or 4 serious candidates by virtue of >> economics of elections. .. >> >>> >>> And as Kathy pointed out, you'd still better tell people that it's not >>> safe to put their favorite first. >>> >> >> dlw: That'd be silly. If you do the math, while it's possible that there >> could be a non-monotonicity problem in the unlikely event of a close three >> way election, it's still less likely than the more typical outcome where it >> makes sense to vote your preferences. And so long as the odds favor the >> typical outcome, the possibility of a sour grapes situation are not >> consequential. It does not rationally change voter behavior. >> > > In nonpartisan/monopartisan elections, including party primaries, there is > unlikely to be a nonmonotonicity problem. In partisan elections where > more-or-less one-dimensional spectra are the norm, nonmonotonicity is a > very real threat. > > JQ >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info