Rob Lanphier's website demo of Condorcet

[Steve Eppley]

I just checked out Rob's demo of Condorcet's method.

Since it allows the user to enter the candidates and ballots using
two massive "pastes", it might be suitable for groups to go ahead 
and use: files containing the candidates and ballots could be
assembled offline with typos corrected, then "cut and pasted" 
while online.

I tried a 52 candidate demo (with only a few ballots), and didn't 
encounter a limit.

I don't like the display of the pairwise matrix, though, since the
summary line at its bottom displays each candidate's "win/loss/tie"
record but not his/her "largest opposition in a loss".  It looks
more like a Copeland demo, so this is a badly flawed intro for
people new to Condorcet's method and I'm reluctant to recommend 
people look at it until this is fixed.

The cells in the pair matrix could perhaps be easier to understand.
The matrix labels the candidates at the left 'B' and the candidates
at the top 'A' and each cell shows the pair counts like this:
   +-------------------------+
   |  [A] 65 votes (65.0)    |
   |  [B] 15 votes (15.0)    |
   |  [NP] 20 votes (20.0)   |
   +-------------------------+

   (NP stands for No Preference.)

How about something like this instead:
      +----------+
      |       65 |
      | 15       |
      |  (20 np) |
      +----------+
This would also make it easier to see the connection between the
column candidates' largest losses if those are shown in a summary row
beneath, since the column numbers can line up:

  Max Loss:   65

Rob might also want to investigate the use of two colors or fonts to 
distinguish which cells are pairlosses or pairwins for the candidate above.
For instance, if losses are displayed in Red and Bold, the Max Loss 
row could also be displayed in Red and Bold and this would clue the 
reader where the Max Loss row came from.

The demo would also be a bit more useful if it would sort the matrix
presentation so the winner is first in the row and column, the
runner-up is second, etc.  Then the user will be able to see the
collective order at a glance.  I don't know if we have a consensus
about the algorithm which should be used to decide the finish order
of the nonwinners, though; I proposed one weeks ago and there were
no dissents, but there was also little comment.

There's a typo in the title field of the Results webpage: 
   Condocet Election Results

* *

I also checked out some of the description Rob provides on nearby
pages, and I think it ought to include an explanation of ranked
ballots.  It appears to assume the reader will already understand
that pairwise methods use ranked ballots.

---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)