Finding the probable best candidate?

[Rob LeGrand]

Steve Barney wrote:
> Yes, of course we have limited information by which to determine the group's
> best candidate, but what if we focus on nothing but the information which is
> contained in an ordinal preference ballot? In that case, the "best" candidate
> may be defined as the one who is most preferred according to the information
> contained in fully ranked ordinal preference ballots. Once again, Donald
> Saari has claimed that he has proven the Borda Count to be the optimal method
> in such a case.

Yes, if we can assume that voters are always sincere and if only ranked ballots
are used, Borda is the "best" method, in the sense that it tends to choose
high-utility candidates.  Which is a completely useless result.  If we can
assume sincere voters, a finely grained cardinal ratings ballot is far better. 
And I think most on this list would agree that there are few instances in which
sincere voters can be assumed.  Saari obviously isn't concerned about the
manipulability of Borda.  But even with sincere voters and ranked ballots,
Borda is a sorry method in my opinion, seeing that it fails clone independence
and majority.  I'd say it's worth sacrificing a little average SU performance
to satisfy such important criteria.

Who deserves to win the following election?  Who wins using Borda?

11:Browne>Bush>Buchanan>Gore>Nader
 2:Buchanan>Bush>Browne>Nader>Gore
 8:Bush>Browne>Buchanan>Gore>Nader
16:Bush>Buchanan>Browne>Gore>Nader
12:Bush>Buchanan>Browne>Nader>Gore
17:Gore>Nader>Browne>Bush>Buchanan
 3:Nader>Browne>Gore>Bush>Buchanan
31:Nader>Gore>Browne>Bush>Buchanan

=====
Rob LeGrand
honky98 at aggies.org
http://www.aggies.org/honky98/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com