This is James Green-Armytage responding to Ken Taylor
>Resloving it with IRV
>would elect C -- basically giving the "insincere" B voters what they ask
>for
>(in fact, B has no chance if IRV is used as the resolution method).
See below for examples of strategic vulnerability in
Condorcet-
Ken Taylor a écrit :
> And finally, as IRV is immune to this particular strategy (a claim made both
> by you and by the author of the article I was responding to), using IRV as a
> completion method would also be immune to this particular strategy. And so,
> my argument against the contention that
James Wrote, responding to me:
> >I may have worded my response to the article too strongly. However, your
> >example, reposted here:
> >46: A>B
> >44: B>C (instead of B>A)
> >5: C>A
> >5: C>B
>
> Please note that there is a second example at the end of that posting;
> one which is stronger in that
To James and Ernie,
Thanks very much for your comments. I agree with Ernie that it's important to
be civil. If my comments regarding the CVD draft seemed unnecessarily
combative, that was not my intention, and I'll try to be more careful in the future.
But please keep in mind that I was respond
Hi Ralph,
I think its a fair critique, but I would encourage you to approach them
in a more positive fashion. For example, I think they do raise a
number of valid points, and this seems the first most of us have seen
of IRV supporters actually trying to tackle the issues head on.
I would enco
to Ralph Suter,
I liked this letter a lot. I especially liked the part where you took
issue with Amy's treatment of Condorcet! I read that book too, and the
part on Condorcet which you cited really bothered me. And the Lijphart
quote, wow! I also agree that the 'punishing candidates who t
This is James Green-Armytage responding to Ken Taylor
>James wrote:
>> However, there is no question that the strategic possibility is there,
>> and so I think that your note is unfortunately quite wrong. If after
>> reading my August posting you no longer hold to your earlier statement,
>I
>> wo
James wrote:
> However, there is no question that the strategic possibility is there,
> and so I think that your note is unfortunately quite wrong. If after
> reading my August posting you no longer hold to your earlier statement, I
> would suggest that you send another e-mail to CVD to concede th
I'm posting this to the Election Methods list and BCC'ing it to Rob Richie
and Terry Bouricus of CVD. I hope they will take a look at the other
commentaries about the CVD draft on the EM list
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/) that are likely to be posted in
the next few day
Ken Taylor quoted from the CVD release:
>Suppose four candidates (A, B, C, and D) are running for an office, where
>candidates A and B are the frontrunners.
>Consider a voter whose true preferences are in order of A, B, C, D. Under
>Condorcet, by voting insincerely this voter can
>minimize the cha
> Just became aware of this:
>
> Draft of CVD analysis about IRV vs. Condorcet Voting
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/instantrunoff/message/1548
> (The message archives are open to everyone)
>
> I haven't gone over it in detail (yet).
>
> I would expect it to show up at http://fairvote.org soon.
Just became aware of this:
Draft of CVD analysis about IRV vs. Condorcet Voting
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/instantrunoff/message/1548
(The message archives are open to everyone)
I haven't gone over it in detail (yet).
I would expect it to show up at http://fairvote.org soon. It would be
great
12 matches
Mail list logo
