Condorcet(x( ))

[Lucien Saumur]

In an article, dfb at bbs.cruzio.com (Mike Ossipoff) writes:

>Lucien Saumur writes:
>> 
>>           I do not understand what you mean by
>> vote-against.
>
>Condorcet's method, as I've defined it, says that:
>
>If no 1 candidate beats each one of the others, then the winner is
>the candidate who has the fewest voters ranking over him someone who
>beats him.
>
>In other words, for each candidate, determine which candidate who beats
>him is ranked over him by the most voters. The number of voters ranking
>that other candidate over him is the measure of how beaten he is. The 
>winner is the candidate least beaten by that measure.
>
>Because, in each pairwise comparison in which X is beaten, Condorcet's
>circular-tie-breaker counts only the votes for the other candidate over
>X, I call that "votes-against".

          Did Condorcet propose this tie-breaking scheme?

          I find this scheme artificial. While circular
ties are logically possible, I am not sure that they are
probable nor do I know what they would mean. I am inclined
to think that they would mean that the voters have no great
preference between the candidates involved in the tie. If
my assumption is correct, then the winner may more simply
and reasonably be decided by drawing lots.

__________________________________________
          aa447 at FreeNet.Carleton.CA
          http://www.igs.net/~lsaumur/