[EM] Why Margins isn't as democratic or ethical as

Rob Lanphier robla at eskimo.com
Tue Feb 8 21:03:45 PST 2000

On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Blake Cretney wrote:
> Rob Lanphier wrote:
> > Another message from Mike...
> > Here's why I claim that Blake Cretney's Margins method
> > isn't as good as Schulze, or any other genuine Condorcet
> > version. (The translations of Condorcet's words indicate that
> > Condorcet judged the strength of a defeat by the number of people
> > voting in favor of that defeat).
> Speaking to Rob Lanphier, do you agree with this argument, or are you
> merely forwarding it?  It all seems to hinge on belief in majority
> rule with a very specific and personal definition.    

I'm forwarding it because my understanding was that measuring "votes
against" was the correct way to do it.  I'm admittedly rusty on the
justification, but I do remember changing my Condorcet program after an
explanation on the list.  I'll go back and read the archive this weekend.

> I am, however, planning to post an essay on the web that will review
> my position on this subject.  This will be easier to read than the
> archive, but of course will only present Mike's arguments in order to
> be refuted.  I plan to ignore the particular argument presented here
> unless other people seem to find it convincing.

I look forward to it.  What will be particularly powerful to me would be
detailed examples of where the distinction between the two different ways
makes a difference.  I'm particularly interested in examples where
truncation is high; where there's a very small ratio of candidates that
even show up on 90% of the ballots compared with the field of candidates.

Rob Lanphier
robla at eskimo.com

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list