Ice-Cream Flavor War
by Richard Fobes
Vote-splitting is the divide-and-conquer strategy that allows the 1 percent to outvote the 99%. Let’s use the power of theatre to reveal this unfairness. Then we, the majority of voters, will be able to elect the problem-solving leaders we want. This reform will remove the special-interest puppets that now fill legislatures (including Congress) and parliaments around the world.
To help people better understand vote-splitting, and how this unfairness can be overcome, I wrote the following skit titled The Ice-Cream-Flavor War. (Its alternate title is The Pairwise Counting Solution.) A performance of it gives the audience the experience of seeing vote splitting in action, and seeing how pairwise counting can overcome that unfairness.
The silliness of arguing about ice-cream flavors helps the audience to understand that vote-splitting affects all sides of a conflict. In turn, this helps people understand that vote splitting is used to control all the big political parties around the world, not just conservative parties and not just liberal parties.
As the author of this skit, and in conjunction with the Democracy Chronicles request for democracy-related YouTube videos, I am giving you permission to create a video of this skit, and we encourage you to share it on YouTube. Then the Democracy Chronicles will help to promote the viewing of your video.
The drawing at the top of this page is intended to inspire you to more easily visualize this skit. This drawing was created by Brian Crabaugh, who also drew the cartoons and people in my book titled Ending The Hidden Unfairness In U.S. Elections. Also here is a link to more drawings by Brian Crabaugh.
This skit can be performed in any language, and understood in any language, because the actions are what are important. In fact it’s written as a pantomime, without dialogue. It becomes more powerful, and more entertaining, when the actors and actresses add dialogue that matches the actions.
Learning how pairwise counting works is a step toward understanding VoteFair ranking, which is the vote-counting method I support. The part of this method that identifies a single most-popular winner is academically known as the Condorcet-Kemeny method. This method produces very fair results, and has been used to elect officers in small organizations. Also it’s one of the methods supported by the signers of the Declaration of Election-Method Reform Advocates.
Vote splitting is only possible because we, the voters, allow governmental elections to use single-mark ballots. To get fairer results, we should be using 1-2-3 ballots that allow us to indicate not just a first choice, but also a second choice, a third choice, and so on. That election-method reform will end the unfairness of elections being won by special-interest puppets instead of problem-solving leaders.
Some small organizations already use 1-2-3 ballots and pairwise counting to elect the organization’s officers. A video of this skit will help to spread this improvement to other organizations. As more people understand the divide-and-conquer strategy called vote splitting, it will become more difficult for the one percent to hide the strategy it uses to control both conservative and liberal political parties around the world.
The road to making that change takes us to the theatre. Enjoy!
“The Ice-Cream Flavor War” (a skit)
(This skit takes about ten minutes to perform (or it can be lengthened), uses a bare stage, and requires 14 actors. It requires props including signs, a table, clear buckets, and 30 balls, as described below.)
From stage right (the viewer’s left) enter a person carrying a sign that says “vanilla” and “vanille”, followed by person number one and person number two. The vanilla sign carrier is dressed in white (or off-white), and the other two people are wearing vanilla-colored (white or off-white or light-colored) blazers. (The numbering of people is used in this written description to identify the actors and their roles; the numbers are not relevant to the audience.)
They stop in the middle of the stage, and person number one and person number two pretend to get vanilla ice cream from the sign carrier, and eat spoonfuls of the ice cream, and make gestures of enjoyment such as rubbing their tummy.
Moments later, from stage left enter a “strawberry” sign carrier carrying a sign that says “strawberry” and “fraise”, followed by person number three, person number four, and person number five. The strawberry sign carrier (probably female) is dressed in pink (or red), and the other three people are wearing strawberry-colored (red or pink) blazers.
They stop near the first group, while the first group watches them. Person number three, person number four, and person number five pretend to get strawberry ice cream from the sign carrier, and similarly eat spoonfuls of it while indicating enjoyment.
Briefly the two groups begin to display indications of being annoyed by the other group.
Moments later, from stage right enter a “chocolate” sign carrier carrying a sign that says “chocolate” and “chocolat”, followed by person number six, person number seven, person number eight, and person number nine. The chocolate sign carrier is dressed in a chocolate-like color (brown or tan), and the other four people are wearing chocolate-colored (brown or tan) blazers.
They stop near the other groups, while the other groups watch them. Person number six, person number seven, person number eight, and person number nine pretend to get chocolate ice cream from the sign carrier, and similarly eat spoonfuls of it while indicating enjoyment.
(Although visually it might be dramatic to have only females in the strawberry group, only European-descendant males in the vanilla group, and dark-skinned people in the chocolate group, this kind of segregation should be avoided because later actions involve secondary preferences that would seem unnatural if the groups are segregated.)
Moments later each of the nine numbered people begin to look annoyed at each of the other two groups, and then begin displaying fists and other nonverbal ways of saying “I don’t like you”. In contrast, the sign-carrying people do not show aggression, but do try to attract attention by moving their signs (and perhaps verbally encouraging interest in their flavor of ice cream).
(This skit can be done non-verbally using only pantomime, or it can be done verbally. If it is done verbally, the actors and the director should develop characterizations for all the actors, and from those characterizations more meaningful dialogue can be developed. For this reason, dialogue suggestions are not provided here.)
The groups intermingle to form a large mass while showing signs of aggression toward people with different-colored blazers.
Moments later, at front-and-center stage, two of the numbered people from different groups accidentally bump into each other, back-to-back. Those two react with more signs of aggression, and this increases the aggression among the numbered people. The sign-carrying people continue to avoid showing aggression, yet mildly try to attract attention for their ice-cream flavor.
The four people wearing chocolate-colored blazers (person number six, person number seven, person number eight, and person number nine) migrate to center stage, and as a group they confront the two people wearing vanilla-colored blazers (person number one and person number two) who have moved toward stage left. Meanwhile the strawberry group has reformed toward stage right. The sign carriers stand near their group members.
The four people wearing chocolate-colored blazers appear to be ready to fight the two people wearing vanilla-colored blazers, and the vanilla group backs away. At this point the three people wearing strawberry-colored blazers, and more reluctantly the strawberry sign carrier, cross in front of the people wearing chocolate-colored blazers and join the people wearing vanilla-colored blazers as if to back them up or defend them.
At this point the five people wearing either vanilla-colored blazers or strawberry-colored blazers count themselves as five people and show this count on their fingers, and count the people wearing chocolate-colored blazers as four people and show that count with fingers, and begin to act more aggressively toward the people wearing chocolate-colored blazers, and the chocolate group backs away.
Moments later the chocolate sign carrier entices one of the people wearing a vanilla-colored blazer (person number one) to taste some chocolate ice cream. Person number one likes it, and appears to defect to the chocolate group.
A moment later the people wearing chocolate-colored blazers count themselves plus person number one to be five people, and count the remaining people as four people, and show these counts on their fingers, and act aggressively toward those four people. The person carrying the vanilla sign moves close to person number two.
A moment later, a referee dressed in a sports-based referee’s uniform enters from stage left, and blows a whistle (and perhaps waves a referee’s flag) and commands attention.
The referee uses hand signals to separate the three groups, putting the chocolate group towards stage right, putting the strawberry group adjacent to them, and putting the vanilla group in the next position. The sign holders are in front of their group members. The numbered people are now in one line, in numerical order, with person number nine towards stage right and person number one towards stage left. The area towards stage left is kept empty.
The referee motions the three sign holders to follow him/her to positions at center stage. Then the referee goes offstage left and, with assistance from a second referee also wearing a referee’s uniform, carries a table onstage, to a position at stage left where everyone in the audience can easily see.
On the table are six clear plastic buckets lined up in a row, with each pair of buckets separated from the other two pairs of buckets. Between each pair of buckets is some kind of pedestal. Currently the pedestals are empty, but later a ball will be placed on each pedestal.
Also on the table, toward the stage-left end, is a large clear bucket that contains 30 or more colored balls. They can be rubber balls, tennis balls, colored golf balls, or any similar size, but they must all be of the same color and size.
The referee labels the six buckets using objects that are also on the table. This can be done using signs that are hung on the lip of each bucket (so that balls in the bottom can be seen), or they can be colored ribbons in the colors brown, red, and white. Alternatively the referee could mark the six buckets with the letters “C” (for chocolate) and “S” (for strawberry) and “V” (for vanilla). This labeling must be visible to the audience. From the perspective of the audience, starting at the left (stage right), the buckets are labeled chocolate, strawberry, chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, and vanilla.
The referee picks up one ball from the large bucket, displays it to the three sign carriers, and places it on the first pedestal. Then the referee picks up another ball, displays it, and places it on the second pedestal. Then the referee picks up a third ball, displays it, and places it on the third and last pedestal.
The referee motions the sign carriers to stay where they are, and goes stage right to person number nine, takes their hand, leads them to center stage, and positions person number nine to face the three sign carriers.
The referee uses hand gestures (and possibly dialogue) to ask which flavor is the person’s first choice, which flavor is the person’s second choice, and which flavor is the person’s third choice. This can be done by counting one, two, and three on the referee’s fingers and then pointing left and right at the three choices.
Of course person number nine, who is wearing a brown blazer, points to the chocolate sign carrier as their first choice.
The referee motions the chocolate sign carrier to stand behind the table behind the first (stage-right-most) bucket, which is labeled chocolate. The referee points to the ball and then points to the bucket. The chocolate sign carrier puts the ball into that bucket.
The referee motions the chocolate sign carrier to move to stand behind the other bucket that is labeled chocolate. The referee points to the ball and then points to the bucket. The chocolate sign carrier puts the ball into that bucket.
The referee motions the chocolate sign carrier to step backward (two or three steps).
The referee comes back to person number nine and uses hand gestures (and maybe spoken words) to ask which of the remaining two choices is the person’s second choice. Person number nine waves their hand to indicate that they do not want to make another choice. The referee walks over to the remaining ball on the pedestal and points to the two buckets. Person number nine waves their hand again to indicate they do not want to make another choice. The referee takes the ball off the pedestal and puts it into the large bucket, but without letting go of the ball. Person number nine appears to recognize that they are wasting an opportunity to express a preference, and reluctantly points to the vanilla sign carrier.
The referee walks closer to the vanilla sign carrier and motions that person to stand behind the first (stage-right-most) vanilla bucket (which from the audience’s perspective is second from the left). The referee points to the pedestal and gestures that there is nothing there, and perhaps points to the first ball in the first chocolate bucket.
The referee motions the vanilla sign carrier to stand behind the other vanilla bucket, and the vanilla sign carrier moves to that position. The referee points to the ball and points to the vanilla bucket. The vanilla sign carrier puts the ball into that bucket.
The referee motions the vanilla sign carrier to step backward, next to the chocolate sign carrier.
The referee motions the strawberry sign carrier to stand behind the first strawberry bucket. The referee points to the pedestal, which is empty, and gestures in an appropriate way, such as shrugging shoulders.
The referee motions the strawberry sign carrier to stand behind the other strawberry bucket. Similarly the referee indicates that there is no ball on the associated pedestal. Then the referee motions the strawberry sign carrier to step backward.
The referee (or the second referee) removes three balls from the large bucket and places them on the three pedestals.
While walking toward person number nine the referee motions the three sign carriers to go back to their earlier position at center stage. The referee puts his/her left hand on the shoulder of person number nine and points to the side of person number one, or wherever there is room on the stage for the numbered people to accumulate. Person number nine goes there.
The referee either motions to person number eight, or goes to person number eight and takes them by the hand. The referee positions person number eight in front of the three sign carriers.
The same sequence is repeated for person number eight as occurred for person number nine, except that person number eight does not hesitate to indicate a second choice, and indicates strawberry as their second choice. In this case the strawberry sign carrier is the second sign carrier to go to the table, so the strawberry sign carrier puts the one remaining ball into the pairwise-associated strawberry bucket. In this case the vanilla sign carrier is unable to put any balls into any vanilla bucket.
For each of the remaining numbered people the same sequence is repeated, except that the referee stops telling the numbered people (the “voters”) and sign carriers what to do, because they now know what to do. However, different people have different preferences, so the movement of balls into buckets varies. Always the rule is that if a sign carrier can move a ball into a pairwise-associated bucket he or she does so, and if a sign carrier reaches a pedestal that is associated with one of their buckets and there is no longer a ball on that pedestal then the sign carrier does nothing except indicate disappointment or displeasure.
The table below summarizes the preferences of all the numbered people.
| Person | First choice | Second choice |
| person number 9 | chocolate | vanilla |
| person number 8 | chocolate | strawberry |
| person number 7 | chocolate | vanilla |
| person number 6 | chocolate | vanilla |
| person number 5 | strawberry | vanilla |
| person number 4 | strawberry | vanilla |
| person number 3 | strawberry | vanilla |
| person number 2 | vanilla | strawberry |
| person number 1 | vanilla | chocolate |
To make this skit more entertaining, the three sign carriers can do a playful trick with each ball after removing it from the pedestal and before putting it into the bucket. Also, the second referee can take over the job of putting each set of three balls on the three pedestals, and doing so in an entertaining way, perhaps by juggling them for a moment.
At the end of this process, after all the numbered people have voted, the small buckets have the following number of balls.
| Bucket position | Bucket Label | Ball Count |
| 1 (stage-right-most) | chocolate | 5 |
| 2 | strawberry | 4 |
| 3 | chocolate | 4 |
| 4 | vanilla | 5 |
| 5 | strawberry | 4 |
| 6 (stage-left-most) | vanilla | 5 |
(This is a total of 27 balls. The extra balls in the large bucket allow for a few balls to be dropped.)
The referee points to the first bucket, which is labeled chocolate, and motions the chocolate sign carrier to stand behind the table behind that bucket.
The referee points to the second bucket, which is labeled strawberry, and motions the strawberry sign carrier to stand behind the table behind that bucket.
The referee looks into the chocolate bucket and uses his/her fingers to count five balls, with the counting process visible to the audience, and then shows this finger count to the people onstage. (Ideally the audience also should be able to see that there are five balls in the clear bucket.) The referee looks into the strawberry bucket and finger-counts four balls, and holds up four fingers.
The referee walks to the side of the chocolate sign carrier and holds up that person’s arm in triumph. The five numbered people who preferred chocolate over strawberry cheer, and wave their hands in triumph.
The referee motions the strawberry sign carrier to step backward. The referee motions the chocolate sign carrier to move to stand behind the other chocolate bucket. The referee motions the vanilla sign carrier to stand behind the table behind the first vanilla bucket.
The referee looks into the chocolate bucket and finger-counts four balls, and holds up four fingers. The referee looks into the vanilla bucket and finger-counts five balls, and holds up five fingers.
The referee walks to the side of the vanilla sign carrier and holds up that person’s arm in triumph. The five people who preferred vanilla over chocolate cheer and wave.
The referee motions the chocolate sign carrier to step backward. The referee motions the vanilla sign carrier to stand behind the other vanilla bucket. The referee motions the strawberry sign carrier to come forward and stand behind the other strawberry bucket.
The referee looks into the strawberry bucket and finger-counts four balls, and holds up four fingers. The referee looks into the vanilla bucket and finger-counts five balls, and holds up five fingers.
The referee walks to the side of the vanilla sign carrier and holds up that person’s arm in triumph. The five people who preferred vanilla over strawberry cheer and wave.
The referee motions the strawberry sign carrier to step backward. The referee goes behind the table and stands next to the vanilla sign carrier. Based on a nudge from the referee the two people move behind the middle pedestal, and the referee points to the vanilla bucket and again raises the vanilla sign-carrier’s arm in triumph. Then the referee pulls the vanilla sign carrier to the stage-left-most pedestal and points at the vanilla bucket and again raises the vanilla sign-carrier’s arm in triumph.
The referee takes from the table either a sash that says something like “FAVORITE” or “BEST” or “FAVORI” or “MEILLEUR” and puts the sash over the head and onto the opposite shoulder, or the referee takes from the table some kind of ribbon or sign and attaches it to the sign-carrier’s vanilla sign.
The referee takes the vanilla sign carrier over to the numbered people and gestures to the sash or added sign. Person number one and person number two, who are wearing white blazers, jump up and down and come to the side of the vanilla sign carrier. Person number three, person number four, and person number five, who are wearing strawberry-colored blazers, have gathered together and thumb their noses (and make other appropriate disparaging gestures) at the people wearing chocolate-colored blazers. Person number six, person number seven, person number eight, and person number nine, who are wearing chocolate-colored blazers, thumb their noses (and make other appropriate disparaging gestures) at the people wearing strawberry-colored blazers.
Then the numbered people start a party by going to their favorite sign carrier to get and eat ice cream.
Then the numbered people go to the sign carrier who represents their second choice (as indicated above in the table) and get more ice cream.
In the meantime the referee pushes the table offstage and (optionally with the assistance of the nonspeaking referee) brings onstage a sign or banner that says:
“The choice with the most first-choice votes is not necessarily the most popular; and the choice with the fewest first-choice votes is not necessarily the least popular. Pairwise counting overcomes this unfairness.”
(A second sign in French might be appropriate.)
In the meantime the vanilla sign carrier has run out of vanilla ice cream, so someone puts a sign on that sign-carrier’s sign that says something like “ALL OUT” (or the equivalent in French). Then the chocolate and strawberry sign carriers each attach to their sign a sign that says something like “STILL AVAILABLE” or “ENCORE DISPONIBLE”.
Clarification: If the “voters” (numbered people) in this skit change their preferences (either their first choice or their second choice, or both) the outcome can be that each of the three choices (chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla) wins only one of its pairwise comparisons, and none of them win both of their pairwise comparisons. To handle these cases, nine balls — instead of just three balls — need to be distributed into six buckets (which can be done by having each sign carrier pull two levers instead of depositing nine balls), and the six buckets need to be labeled differently, and the single bucket with the most balls will indicate both which choice is most popular and which choice is second-most popular. For details, see the instructions for building the VoteFair marble machine.
© Copyright 2011 by Richard Fobes at VoteFair.org. Richard Fobes is the author of Ending The Hidden Unfairness In U.S. Elections and the inventor of VoteFair ranking as described at VoteFair.org. You have permission to print copies of this skit and/or re-publish this skit if you include this full copyright notice and if you do not change the voter preferences. You have permission to perform and video-record this skit if the voter preferences are not changed. The original skit is posted at VoteFair.org.
Ice-Cream Flavor War Credits
Please help to promote 1-2-3 ballots and pairwise counting by performing and video-recording this educational, yet entertaining, skit. Let’s use theatre to promote real democracy.
Michael Ossipoff says
Quoting parts from Richard Fobes’ article, for the purpose of commenting on it:
Richard says:
Vote-splitting is the divide-and-conquer strategy that allows the 1 percent to outvote the 99%. Let’s use the power of theatre to reveal this unfairness. Then we, the majority of voters, will be able to elect the problem-solving leaders we want. This reform will remove the special-interest puppets that now fill legislatures (including Congress) and parliaments around the world.
[endquote]
Of course the split-vote problem can be solved very simply, by the simplest and most minimal change from Plurality: the simple Approval voting system. Approval’s brief definition:
Approve any candidate(s) that you want to. …as many as you want to. The winner is the candidate approved by the most voters.
[end of Approval definition]
Approval solves the split-vote problem. And, unlike Richard’s “VoteFair”, Approval also completely eliminates need or incentive to vote someone over one’s favorite. In other words, Approval eliminates favorite-burial incentive. With Approval, no one would ever have incentive, need, or reason to not vote their favorite(s) over everyone else.
That can’t be said for Richard’s VoteFair.
Additionally, Approval meets a criterion called Later-No-Help. I’ll define it here:
When making out your ballot, having voted for some candidates, you have no need or incentive to add more candidates to your ballot in order to fully help the candidates you’ve already voted for.
[end of definition of Later-No-Help]
Richard’s VoteFair fails that criterion too.
A few other things that VoteFair can do that Approvel (or even Plurality) wouldn’t do:
Say that the voting system in use is VoteFair. You, and a few other people who vote the same way you do, are on their way to vote. Just before you arrive at the polling station, the ballots that have been cast, up to that point, would result in a win for the candidate that you rank alone in 1st place–the candidate whom you rank over all of the other candidates.
But then you arrive and vote. And guess what: By voting, you cause your top-ranked csndidate to lose.
You say that’s ridiculous? Yes, it is ridiculous. But VoteFair can do it.
Approval and Plurality wouldn’t do that.
Here’s another thing that can happen in VoteFair:
Say you and I count the ballots in a VoteFair election for a city mayor election. Say, just out of curiosity, in addition to the overall result, we’re interested in whom the voters in the north half of town would elect; and we’re also interested in whom the voters in the south half of the town would elect. As you know, such information is often reported when election results are reported. So, suppose that the newspaper, the day after the election reported the overall winner, the north-half winner, and the south-half winner.
Now, suppose that Mr. Smith wins in the north half. And suppose that Mr. Jones wins in the south half. Now, guess what: Mr. Jones wins overall.
Smith wins in the north half, Smith wins in the south half, and Smith loses overall. Ridiculous? Sure, but VoteFair will do that.
Approval and Plurality won’t do that.
All of the above failings and problems of VoteFair also aren’t possessed by Score either.
Richard says:
Learning how pairwise counting works is a step toward understanding VoteFair ranking, which is the vote-counting method I support.
[endquote]
Yeah? Let’s ask Richard to post the full definition of VoteFair, to show you how long that definition is. Compare it to the elegantly brief definition of Approval that is written earlier in this reply.
Richard says:
The part of this method that identifies a single most-popular winner is academically known as the Condorcet-Kemeny method.
[endquote]
According to Kristofer Munsterhjelm, at the election-methods mailing list, VoteFair is different from Condorcet-Kemeny, and will sometimes give different results, with the same rankings. Let’s not mis-represent academic proposals, Richard, or try to incorrectly identify our proposals with academic proposals.
Richard says:
This method produces very fair results
[endquote]
See above.
Richard says:
, and has been used to elect officers in small organizations.
[endquote]
How many organizations? How small?
Approval has been, and is, used in some large organizations. Approval is part of the process by which the U.N. Secretary General is elected.
Richard says:
Also it’s one of the methods supported by the signers of the Declaration of Election-Method Reform Advocates.
[endquote]
The signers of that delcaration agreed that it’s necessary to replace the single-markk (Plurality) system with something better.
I’d have to re-check the Declaration to find out if it specifically mentioned VoteFair.
If it does, then it’s odd that it would mention that method that has pretty much only one advocate. Why does the Declaration feature Richard’s pet proposal? Wasn’t Richard one of the two people who wrote the Declaration? :-)
But, as I said, I’d have to re-check, to find if the Declaration mentions VoteFair, or if it just mentions Kemeny (to which VoteFair is quite similar, but not identical). …or if it only mentions the very broad “Condorcet” category.
Vote splitting is only possible because we, the voters, allow governmental elections to use single-mark ballots. To get fairer results, we should be using 1-2-3 ballots that allow us to indicate not just a first choice, but also a second choice, a third choice, and so on.
[endquote]
That’s Richard’s opinion. As I said, the split-vote problem is avoided by Approval, and by Score. …without all of the problems of VoteFair, to which I referred above.
Rank-balloting, in general, has other drawbacks too: There are innumerable ways to count rank-ballots. There is no agreement, among rank-advocates, about which method to propose–and there never will be.
In contrast, Approval is the one simplest and most minimal improvement on Plurality, the simple fix of Plurality’s worst problems.
Rank-counts are all highly computation-intensive. Probably all would require a computer count, with the consequent count-fraud vulnerability. No voting system, however much you like its potential results, will deliver on its promise if count-fraud determines the winner.
Approval, in contrast to VoteFair, has, by far, the simplest and easiest count of any voting system other than Pluralty. Can Richard name any other voting system whose count needs as much computation as Kemeny and VoteFair? I doubt it.
Then follows Richard’s skit. It’s a very long story. Does that long story tell the VoteFair count rule? If so, then we must concluse that the VoteFair count rule has a very long definition. And so it does.
But wait: Richard says to look elsewhere for the “details”. In other words, that long, long story doesn’t even include the details of VoteFair’s definition :-)
And, by the way, I sometimes point out that the chicken dilemma is not a problem to Approval and Score–It’s only a nuisance. But that nuisance is the nearest thing to a problem that Approval and Score have. Therefore, improving significantly on Approval and Score requires getting rid of the chicken dilemma. That can easily be done with a rank method. VoteFair doesn’t get rid of the chicken dilemma.
The rank-count called Symmetrical ICT gets rid of the chicken dilemma, in addition to not giving any incentive or need to favorite-bury (unlike VoteFair), and in addition to passing Later-No-Help (unlike VoteFair).
But, as I said, rank methods have too many drawbacks to be feasible or desirable as public proposals, which is why I recommend only Approval, and maybe Score.
Michael Ossipoff
Michael Ossipoff says
Correction:
I wrote one wrong word in my post.
In the example of an election in which the newspaper, the day after the election, reports the overall winner, and the winner in the north half of town, and the winner in the south half of town, here is what I meant to say:
In the north half of town, Mr. Smith wins.
In the South half of town, Mr. Smith wins.
But, in the overall count for the town, Mr. Jones wins.
That’s ridiculous, but VoteFair will do that.
Approval, Score, and Plurality won’t do that.
That’s called the Consistency Criterion.
The failure in which, with VoteFair, you make your favorite candidate lose by showing up and ranking him over everyone else, is referred to as a failure of the Participation Criterion.
So, VoteFair fails the Favorite-Betrayal-Criterion (FBC), the Later-No-Help Criterion (LNHe), the Participation Criterion, and the Consistency Criterion.
Approval and Score pass all of those criteria. In other words, they pass FBC, Later-No-Help, Participation, and Consistency.
Symmetrical ICT, being a Condorcet version, fails (as does VoteFair) Participation and Consistency, but passes FBC and Later-No-Help.
Symmetrical ICT, unlike VoteFair, gets rid of the chicken dilemma.
As I said, I don’t recommend any rank voting system, due to the problems that I cited. For official public elections, I recommend only approval, and maybe Score.
Michael Ossipoff
Michael Ossipoff says
Sorry, but there’s another mis-wording that I’d like to correct:
I said:
“With Approval, no one would ever have incentive, need, or reason to not vote their favorite(s) over everyone else.”
That wording is unclear.
I should instead say this:
With Approval, no one would ever have any incentive, need or reason to vote anyone over his/her favorite.
No one would ever have any reason to not fully support their favorite by giving to him/her Approval’s highest rating, 1 point instead of 0 points.
Michael Ossipoff
Michael Ossipoff says
One other clarification:
I wanted to briefly and clearly word the criterion Later-No-Help.
But some might object when I refer to adding someone to your ballot.
Let me,then, replace “add to ballot” with “vote for”. You vote for a candidate if you vote him/her over at least one other candidate.
Later-No-Help:
When making out your ballot, when you’ve voted for some candidates, there is no need for you to vote for additional candidates in order to fully help the candidates for whom you’ve already voted.
[end of reworded Later-No-Help definition]
It could be worded more precisely, but my main purpose is to convey the meaning briefly.
When I speak of fully helping candidates, I mean, doing all that you can to make them win.
Kristina Serrata says
The meaning of the phrase “ice cream” varies from one country to another. Phrases such as “frozen custard”, “frozen yogurt”, “sorbet”, “gelato” and others are used to distinguish different varieties and styles. In some countries, such as the United States, the phrase “ice cream” applies only to a specific variety, and most governments regulate the commercial use of the various terms according to the relative quantities of the main ingredients.
Richard Fobes says
Kristina, thank you for your clarification. Interesting.
(Your clarity is a nice contrast with the misunderstandings that are expressed [in spite of repeated attempts to clear up the misunderstandings] in the prior comments.)