Tobin-Condorcet bad example? (was Re: Election Methods Poll (fin (fwd)

[Mike Ossipoff]

Mike Ossipoff writes:
> From dfb Thu Oct  3 21:15:04 1996

[Sorry--Again I forgot & sent this letter by the "reply" option
instead of the "group-reply" option, and so my reply went only
to Tobin. This is a copy which I'm forwarding to EM. In the future
I'll always reply via the "group reply" option.]

> Subject: Re: Tobin-Condorcet bad example? (was Re: Election Methods Poll (fin
> To: htobin at ccom.net
> Date: Thu, 3 Oct 96 21:15:02 PDT
> From: dfb at bbs.cruzio.com (Mike Ossipoff)
> Cc: dfb at bbs.cruzio.com
> In-Reply-To: <325488F7.C1A at ccom.net>; from "Hugh R. Tobin" at Oct 3, 96 8:48 pm
> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0]
> Message-ID:  <9610032115.aa13167 at cruzio.com>
> 
> Hugh R. Tobin writes:
> > 
> > Steve Eppley wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hugh T wrote:
> > > > "In each pairwise contest between X and Y, count as 1/2 vote for X
> > > > and 1/2 vote for Y an equal ranking of X with Y by a voter, if that
> > > > voter ranked all other members of the Smith set ahead of X and Y.
> > > > Otherwise count the ranking as 0 votes for each."
> > 
> > >> *******
> > > By the way, Hugh, would you prefer that I change the report so the
> > > name of the method is Tobin-Condorcet?  I will if you don't object.
> > > 
> > > ---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)
> > 
> > Steve, I think your "bad example" merits (even more) serious discussion,
> > as its implications extend well beyond the question of half-votes.  For
> > now I can only respond to the last point: I think it should be called
> > Smith//Condorcet (Tobin) or Smith//Condorcet (1/2), or something
> > similar, in order to make clear this is a minor adjustment I propose,
> > nothing anywhere near as signficant as Smith.
> 
> I disagree. A modification that would eliminate the properties that
> are the reasons why we like a method can't be called insignificant.
> The question of whether it's ok to falsify someone's ballot by
> counting that person as saying something that he/she didn't say
> isn't insignificant either. The issue of whether or not someone
> expressing indifference between 2 alternatives should be counted
> as opposing each one with respect to the other isn't insignificant.
> 
> Myself, because I hope that we get this posted some time during the
> '96 Presidential campaign, I don't object to "Smith//Condorcet(Tobin),
> even though I believe that that method is much more than a version
> of Smith//Condorcet--It's a new method that includes Smith//Condocet,
> along with a rule that changes the method so fundamentally that
> it's doubtful whether the name should start out with "Smith//Condorcet".
> So I agree with Steve's suggestion of putting Tobin's name first
> in that method's name, to emphasize the major fundamental nature
> of the modification. But, as I said, I don't object to calling
> it "Smith//Condorcet(Tobin), because we're running out of time
> if we're going to post our report to ER in time to be of any
> use during the heighened interest in sw methods that exists during
> the Presidential Campaign. 
> 
> Let's call the method Smith//Condorcet(Tobin), and include Tobin's
> definition of it.
> 
> It seems to me, and I hope you agree, that when someone suggests a
> modification like that, and no one expresses opposition to it, then
> it wouldn't be at all undemocatic for Steve to incorporate that
> small modification (by including that definition).
> 
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> > 
> > -- Hugh
> > 
> > .-
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> .-
> 


--