> Removing a losing candidate from the ballots and from the election, > and then re-counting the ballots, shouldn't change the winner. > > Approval and Score pass. >
Michael, I find it very inconsistent for you to argue so adamantly for voters to use maximal strategy [endquote] I was just saying that there's no reason to expect people to vote other than optimally, based on their perceptions. A voting system shouldn't be promoted based on an assumption of suboptimal voting. You continued: and then to use a criterion that doesn't allow them to adjust their ballot when one candidate is dropped. [endquote] Suppose we held an election, and the Democrat won, and right after the election the Republican said "I want to retroactively withdraw from the election. Let's pretend that I hadn't been in the election. I want you to conduct another balloting, without me in the election." For one thing, of course s/he wouldn't do that. And, if s/he did, we could reasonably say, "Well, you should have thought of that sooner, shouldn't you." But, at least in that instance, another election would be fine with me, because a lot of progressives would vote Green instead of Democrat. But I can't say that a withdrawer has a right to insist on a new election. Of course s/he certainly has a right to advocate one, and circulate initiative petitions calling for an up/down vote on holding a new election. But that isn't really the issue of IIAC. IIAC merely says that removal of a losing candidate shouldn't change the result. IIAC says nothing about whether there should be another election if a losing candidate calls for one without hir in it.. IIAC is merely about consistent count-mechanics, given an unchanging set of ballots. Mike Ossipoff If voters even do so much as re-normalize their ballot when a losing candidate is dropped, that can ruin independence of irrelevant alternatives. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info