[EM] Mr Ketchum: Rule on when 0 winners is best for 1 winner elections
research at ijs.co.nz
Thu Sep 6 02:31:22 PDT 2001
At 01.09.05 22:37 +1200 Wednesday, Craig Carey wrote:
>Mr Ketchum: to state a position you can post up the equations
>that define when this Condorcet method you like, will find the
>wrong number of winners. Is Condorcet like something you found
>out of a garbage can?, or do you have principles that allow
At 01.09.06 02:52 -0400 Thursday, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> When he asks for equations he really is trying to drag me into his
>math world. I resist that partly for no time and partly because, while
Mr Ketchum has a principle which is that some preferential methods
ought pick the wrong number of winners. In the context of the question
that asked for the rule or test saying when a method (any method or just
a repaired or plain Condorcet method) was right to not get the right
winners, please state the nature of the maths world that you wish to
If it is like changing a room, it may be that the politicians in the
next room may not be too friendly too. Indeed they could ask the exact
same question. You did say you were somewhat political in view or
something. You probably felt that whatever bugs Condorcet had, were
things that it and not so many other methods, could be let off on?.
Can the principle of Condorcets weighty bugs be generalised?.
>B>C; AND C>A) he would be sort of correct. Condorcet backers look for
>sensible ways to resolve such cycles.
But they may not find such methods. Arguments that would reject
repair attempts of Condorcet, can be crippled by allowing regions
where the wrong numbers of winners are found. Does Mr Ketchum defend
Condorcet by having principles for different methods?: holes in
Condorcet and anti-voter behaviour in repaired variants. Where there
are different tests for different methods, then that can all be
explained to the Ombudsmen of voters. But such intelligent people
are recipients of labels that they would be trying to trap a political
mind into mere maths.
Take as much time as you like Mr Ketchum. If the Condorcet repairers
do believe the method can be fixed, discussion would be handicapped
by woodworker's style to method design.
Note above that Mr Ketchum used the word "resist" rather than a word
like refuse, It means that members can't yet write off a part of the
list as a source of info on why it good to get winner set wrong.
Mr Ketchum's refusal to provide the answer is limiting others' ability
to show he is in the wrong to defend Condorcet or all methods in its
class: ones with 'paradox' regions.
Here is my version of the Fluffy the Dog example:
> AB 48 : 1 winner (no. 1)
> B 3
> CB 49
> Condorcet: B wins : A:B = 48:52, B:C = 51:49, C:A = 49:48
> FPTP: C wins
One thing that Mr Ketchum might be aiming to withhold from us is his
opinion on papers have the votes in the ratio 48:(3+x):(49-x). There
is maybe not much to think about until the maths world of Mr Ketchum
is defined better. It was mistake to call it my world: I would analyse
his position but he was withholding fully general information about
the nature of 'paradox/wrong_number_of_winners' regions that arcs
would pass through. Once you get the first question answered I may
>Craig said something unkind about Condorcet, and I could not resist
>joining in at 16:40 EDT.
What about answering the question?.
Mr Ketchum seems to believe that Condorcet can be fixed. But what is
a true variant and what isn't, is something that is not obvious or
Once the list finally quits debating over why all methods can be
allowed to pick the wrong number of winners then I will be in a
better position to reject all Condorcet variants. It allows harsher
tests to be adopted. Condorcet could still pass but ...
>On Wed, 05 Sep 2001 22:21:51 -0700 Richard Moore wrote:
More information about the Election-Methods