Correct Wording Of My Proposal

Mike Ositoff ntk at
Wed Aug 5 19:23:48 PDT 1998

I've just realized that I left important words out of the
proposal that I just posted.

So let me start over:

Throw out the least defeat in any 1st order cycle. Then,
in any 2nd order cycles (cycle that is a subcycle of a 1st
order cycle), throw out the least defeat among the defeats
of alternatives no longer defeated in a 1st order cycle.

Continue, for any next order cycle, throwing out the
least defeat in any next order cycle, among the defeats of
alternatives no longer defeated in lower order cycles.


Now, that's what I meant to say before. In the examples I
tried, it seems to avoid the problems of other Condorcet
versions, and avoid all subcycle fratricide, while being
more decisive than the other recently-discussed Condocret


According to Markus's recent posting, what Condorcet was
proposing is what we call plain Condorcet. If it were to go
by votes-against, it would be plain Condorcet(EM).


It seems to me that all of these votes-against Condorcet versions
meet the 2 criteria that say new sincere voters shouldn't be
able to defeat their favorite or elect their last choice, as
a result of participating in the election.


It also seems that none of them can, and probably no
top quality method can, meet the criterion that says that
a new sincere voter (or block of identically-voting ones) can
worsen the result for themselves in any way as a result of
participating in the election.

CVD is fond of making that claim for IRO, by saying that your
lower choice votes can never hurt your upper choice ones.

But, the word "sincere" is the catch. In IRO, you often worsen
the result for youself by sincere voting, compared to what it
would be if you voted insincerely. And if you vote insincerely
when it seems strategically necessary, then, when you've guessed
wrong, then you most assuredly can worsen the result for
yourself, and even defeat your favorite, or even elect your
last choice. So, when CVD makes that claim, these things
should be pointed out.

Mike Ossipoff

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list