Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [FSP] Problem with Concorcet

Expand Messages
  • jason.sorens@yale.edu
    ... We considered IRV, but everyone informed us that it was inferior to Condorcet. With many candidates, as we have, it can yield real paradoxes when
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 8, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Quoting Rich Tomasso <rich_tomasso@...>:

      > Is it though? IRV seemed to fit all our needs, and 90% of our
      > audience
      > already understands it.

      We considered IRV, but everyone informed us that it was inferior to
      Condorcet. With many candidates, as we have, it can yield real
      paradoxes when Condorcet does not. Also, I'm not sure it's
      intrinsically any easier to understand than Condorcet; it's just more
      frequently used & therefore more familiar to some - many members I
      talked to had real trouble w/ IRV when I proposed it.

      > I think I found another big problem with Condorcet: You can win the
      > vote
      > and still not be picked. My quick math seems to indicate that even if
      > we
      > hold the vote at 5000 and State A gets 2501 or more first-place
      > votes, it
      > can still lose.

      No, that's impossible. If a state wins 2,501 votes against every other
      state in a voting population of 5,000, then the greatest number of
      votes that any state could win against it is 2,499. If a state has
      2,501 first place votes, it will always win, even if it has 2,499 last
      place votes. I guess a new voting explanation is necessary. :-/

      Jason
    • Rich Macy
      ... Notwithstanding Jason s comment that a state with 2,501 first-place votes cannot lose, I do not see how this is a bad thing. I think choosing the best
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 8, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        > Concorcet seems to be a method to find the best compromize
        > candidate rather than the most preferred candidate, which aren't the same
        > thing.

        Notwithstanding Jason's comment that a state with 2,501 first-place votes
        cannot lose, I do not see how this is a bad thing. I think choosing the best
        compromise candidate would actually make more people happy than choosing the
        the most preferred.

        =====
        "Where the government fears the people, there is liberty. Where the people fear the government, there is tyranny." --Thomas Jefferson
        Liberty in Our Lifetime - www.freestateproject.org

        __________________________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
        http://tax.yahoo.com
      • Kelly Setzer
        ... Plurality (popular) voting is exactly what gets you presidents like George Bush or Bill Clinton. I don t point that out as some sort of political
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 8, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 11:31:32AM -0700, Rich Macy wrote:
          > > Concorcet seems to be a method to find the best compromize
          > > candidate rather than the most preferred candidate, which aren't the same
          > > thing.
          >
          > Notwithstanding Jason's comment that a state with 2,501 first-place votes
          > cannot lose, I do not see how this is a bad thing. I think choosing the best
          > compromise candidate would actually make more people happy than choosing the
          > the most preferred.

          Plurality (popular) voting is exactly what gets you presidents like
          George Bush or Bill Clinton. I don't point that out as some sort of
          political statement, only to illustrate two important points about
          compromise choices:

          1) Neither Bush nor Clinton were elected by even a simple majority of
          the citizens. (I'm ignoring Electoral College gyrations.)

          2) After the Bush and Clinton were elected, the majority of the
          citizens did not want that person to be president. Ergo, a majority
          of the citizens was not satisfied with the selection.

          If you looked at those results in abstract terms (33% of the people vote
          for red jelly beans, etc.), then it seems counterituitive. It also
          illustrates a major issue with the way political offices are filled:
          by the time the citizens get to vote on a candidate, that candidate has
          been the winner of numerous previous compromise choices (i.e. party
          conventions, etc.). If anything, we need more candidates on the
          ballots, rather than just the candidates that manage to be the least
          objectional after repeated compromises. In the end, all we get are
          compromised and corrupt politicians. I guess that's a personal rant.

          As far as the FSP vote, I'll make these two points:
          1) This is not at all like a political election, so my comments above
          are, more or less, off-topic. The FSP vote is more like getting 5,000
          members to agree on what color Corvette we're going to buy.

          2) The voting method topic has been beaten to death. I would really
          reccommend you read through the archive. There has been a tremendous
          amount of technical and social analysis on this matter.

          Kelly
        • Jason P Sorens
          ... There is some virtue to that, I agree. Condorcet is sort of a compromise itself between methods that heavily emphasize second- and third-place votes (like
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 8, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Rich Macy wrote:

            > > Concorcet seems to be a method to find the best compromize
            > > candidate rather than the most preferred candidate, which aren't the same
            > > thing.
            >
            > Notwithstanding Jason's comment that a state with 2,501 first-place votes
            > cannot lose, I do not see how this is a bad thing. I think choosing the best
            > compromise candidate would actually make more people happy than choosing the
            > the most preferred.

            There is some virtue to that, I agree. Condorcet is sort of a compromise
            itself between methods that heavily emphasize second- and third-place
            votes (like Borda) and methods that heavily emphasize first-place votes
            (like IRV). It is likely that no state will win an outright majority of
            first-place ballots, so the winning state will have to have both a high
            number of first-place votes and a high number of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place
            votes. In other words, Condorcet is most likely to pick the candidate
            that is both a leader in terms of people's first preferences and is
            generally acceptable to a large number of those who do not rank it first.
            Polarizing candidates are unlikely to win unless they have an outright
            majority supporting them, and only a minority dislike them extremely.

            ___________________________________________________________________________

            Jason P Sorens - jason.sorensATyale.edu - <http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35>

            <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?
          • Phyllis
            ... Rich, I was about to reply to Rich Tomaso s statement when I noticed your reply. You have said exactly what I was thinking. With the current air of
            Message 5 of 6 , Apr 8, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- Rich Macy <rich_tiger@...> wrote:
              > > Concorcet seems to be a method to find the best
              > compromize
              > > candidate rather than the most preferred candidate,
              > which aren't the same
              > > thing.
              >
              > Notwithstanding Jason's comment that a state with 2,501
              > first-place votes
              > cannot lose, I do not see how this is a bad thing. I
              > think choosing the best
              > compromise candidate would actually make more people
              > happy than choosing the
              > the most preferred.
              >
              Rich, I was about to reply to Rich Tomaso's statement when
              I noticed your reply. You have said exactly what I was
              thinking. With the current air of division I believe a
              clear win for any one state (as first choice) will only
              defeat the purpose of Freedom in our Lifetime. I believe
              this same spirit is what has kept the Libertarian Party
              from winning elections. IMO, if we don't learn to
              compromise our mission is destined to break up into
              factions.

              Phyl



              =====
              When Hitler came for the Jews... I was not a Jew, therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then, Hitler attacked me and the
              Protestant church and there was nobody left to be concerned. Pastor Martin Niemoller

              Freedom in our lifetime: http://www.freestateproject.com

              __________________________________________________
              Do you Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
              http://tax.yahoo.com
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.