[EM] New voting system website. Comments sought.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus wrote:

>I want two add two points.
>
>First: To my opinion, some parts of Russ Paielli's website
>are written in a too optimistic manner. Statements like
>"The Condorcet voting system allows all voters to vote their
>true preferences and gives them no reason or incentive to
>vote strategically or defensively by falsifying their true
>preferences." are simply not true and should be written in
>a more realistic manner.

Yes, maybe it would be good to moderate the wording to something
like: "Condorcet's method is free of need for defensive strategy
to an unequalled degree."

But he didn't say "absolutely always". When there's no falisification
of preferences, a majority is completely free of need for
defensive strategy under the very plausible conditions specified
by SFC & GSFC.

No other simple method (method whose only input is a vote,
set of votes or ratings, or a ranking from each voter, in one
balloting) can equal that freedom from need for defensive
strategy.

Of course, as I've defined "defensive strategy" it only applies
to majorities anyway.

So the claim doesn't seem unfair. It says that Condorcet
is free of need for defensive strategy, something that's true
under certain very plausible conditions, and something that
is true of Condorcet to a degree that can't be matched by any
other simple method.

Still, of course that wording could be moderated to say that
Condorcet is free of need for defensive strategy to an unequalled
degree. That is still a strong statement, and that would satisfy
you, wouldn't it?

>
>Second: I have the impression that Russ Paielli rather wants
>to promote Condorcet methods than to discuss the different
>Condorcet methods in a scientific manner. But then it would
>be better if he concentrated on only one "optimal" Condorcet
>method.

It's about time we promoted Condorcet methods. We could discuss
them forever, and while we're discussing them, the Naders would
still be losing every time because of the lesser-of-2-evils problem.
Our goal is the pragmatic one of wanting to use Condorcet to
improve elections, with predictable improvements in
society.

I believe that we both feel that thorough discussion of the
Condorcet versions would be something very wordy that would just
put people off. But we state their compliance & noncompliance with
certain important criteria. Surely you aren't saying that we
should include the proofs of compliance & noncompliance in the
website. Well maybe we could add that, if people think it's
needed. It's already been written. Should we add them?

The idea is just to define the methods, show how they work, via
example, and state their compliance & noncompliance with criteria
relating to the widely-valued standards of majority rule &
the lesser-of-2-evils problem.

Of course there's a case for saying we should concentrate on just
1 optimal Condorcet version. But, for public elections, Tideman(wv)
and SSD are so close in merit that it seemed good to include both,
giving the reader 2 things that he/she might like.

Some people might like or understand Tideman better. Some people
might like or understand SSD better. So why not include both,
to increase the number of people who like & understand at least
one of our top methods?

Or does it seem really important to just include one? I don't want
to take a defensive tone, because we did ask for list members'
advice. Maybe you're right. But what about the consideration of
doubling the chance that a particular reader will find something
that he/she understands & likes?

If we want to define just one, I claim that, the choice between
SSD & Tideman should be based entirely on which is easier to
define, explain, & demonstrate. SSD & Tideman both seem to have
plausible, obviously-motivated definitions, but when working
an example, and telling why it's done as it's done, Tideman seems
easier to demonstrate in an example. Any opinions on which of
those 2 methods is easier to define, explain, & demonstrate?

Our inclination, at this point, is that, if we were to choose just
one method to define, it would be Tideman. Any opinions on
which of those 2 would be better to define at the website? Or
any other opinion about whether it would be better to just
define one Condorcet version?

Personally, I like showing people 2 good ways to solve circular
ties, the 2 best publicly-proposable rank-count rules.
But other opinions are what we want here.

Mike Ossipoff






________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com