Skip to main content

View Diary: Morning feature: Plurality voting and better methods (124 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's easy, I think (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    unless I am missing your point ...


    Nader 100
    Gore   90
    Bush   20
    Buchanan 0

    I don't see how strategic voting comes into it.

    •  Here's how (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      plf515, NCrissieB

      He could have used a better example, but say that Bush and Gore are the obvious front-runners. Then you are strategically compelled to give Gore a 100 and Bush a 0.

      Of course, that's fine, because even with lots of people acting strategically like that, score voting behaves quite nicely (and actually much better than essentially all Condorcet methods). Here's the pleasant surprise theorem, for example:

      Also this fellow apparently doesn't realize that Condorcet methods are ALSO vulnerable to strategic behavior.

      •  This is why you need NOTA! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        plf515, NCrissieB

        The Dark Horse candidate can never win if you include a NOTA candidate.  In the example cited, A's supporters vote ANDBC, B's supporters vote BNDAC and C's supporters vote CNDAB.  Now what happens?  NOTA wins.  Now you need a new election ... and people actually don't want that (see Republican sentiment in Minnesota for proof).

        OK, so let's suppose A's supporters vote honestly, but B and C's supporters vote tactically.  Now we get votes ABCND, BNDAC and CNDAB.  NOTA wins again, and we rerun the election.

        OK, now only C's supporters vote tactically, giving us ABCND, BACND and CNDAB.  Now A and B both rate ahead of NOTA, and A beats B.  We have a winner!  And it's the right one.  C's supporters haven't affected the result of the election by voting dishonestly.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (156)
  • Community (71)
  • Elections (44)
  • Environment (42)
  • Bernie Sanders (42)
  • 2016 (40)
  • Hillary Clinton (35)
  • Spam (34)
  • Culture (33)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Climate Change (31)
  • Media (31)
  • Civil Rights (27)
  • Labor (27)
  • Congress (24)
  • Science (24)
  • Education (24)
  • Law (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site