[EM] Condorcet Criterion for plurality.

[LAYTON Craig]

Martin Harper wrote:

>Hmm - this feels wrong, but it's hard to put into words why... It just
>seems to me that an integral part of a voting method is the type of
>ballot - 'plurality-on-preferential' is different to plurality.

What exactly do you mean by 'plurality-on-preferential'?

>Similarly, changing the wording on the ballot significantly would also
>indicate a slightly different voting method: there's a difference between
>asking the voters to 'put in order until you don't care or don't know',
>and asking them to 'put in order all those who you support'.

or perhaps just 'put in order'?

Certainly there is a difference, and quite a big difference.  Arguably,
things like the instructions on the ballot paper, the way in which you're
supposed to fill it in etc. has as much (if not more) impact on the result
as the count rule that you use.  Nevertheless, it is not a different voting
method, if you count the ballots the same way.  Is plurality a different
method if you require voters to vote with 1's rather than crosses (or punch
cards or whatever you use) and call it a single vote preferential system?

You can define all systems preferentially.  Whether this is a good idea or
not, I'm not sure.