Re: Problems with the majority requirement
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 12:18:14AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 10:53:42PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > My vexation is that I've convinced myself that if everyone is
> > rational and willing to vote strategically, then "second-place"
> > candidate will win, because its backers can improve their outcome by
> > ranking the lower preferences insincerely, whereas A's backers
> > cannot. This is highly counter-intuitive to me. But again, this
> > has nothing to do with the proposal, only with Condorcet plus any of
> > the tie-break mechanisms I've seen.
>
> "everyone is rational" is, in general, not the same as "willing to vote
> strategically".
Right, I meant "and" as "and also".
> Anyways, it sounds like you're comparing the above vote with
> 8 ACB
> 7 BCA
> 5 C
>
> Intuitively: there's near universal agreement that C is a fairly good
> option, and the people favoring A over C are just about cancelled out by
> the people favoring B over C. In your previous vote, there was no such
> agreement that C was a decent option (most people voted it dead last).
Right, this is mostly unrelated to the rest of the discussion, which
I hoped to convey by putting it in a footnote and starting with "as
an aside". :-)
Andrew
Reply to: