[EM] The Coming California Single Seat Election

[Dave Ketchum]

I am playing catchup, raher than resoponding especially to Alex.

I am seeing statements in this thread that are NOT what I expected!

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 15:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Alex Small wrote:

> Adam Tarr said:
> 
>>>Well, since Condorcet is (to the best of my knowledge) never used in
>>>public elections and rarely used in private groups, I don't know
>>>whether the 0.5 votes each is a standard convention or not.  It
>>>wouldn't change the margins, so it would be applicable to margins
>>>methods.  Certainly it would be necessary for winning votes methods.
>>>
>>No, absolutely not.  When you add half-votes, the results for winning
>>votes  become identical to margins.  The whole point of winning votes is
>>you only  count the votes FOR the candidate in a pairwise contest.
>>
> 
> Poor phrasing on my part.  The "it" was the keeping of separate A>B and
> B>A tallies.  I was replying to a reply to a message, and my use of
> pronouns was sloppy.  I agree with your assessment that treating equal
> rankings as half votes would be equivalent to margins.  I don't want a
> margins vs. winning votes debate either.
> 

Suppose two voters vote A=B:
      If margins is the difference in their backing, it matters not 
whether these votes are counted or not.
      If winning votes is the count of whichever of these has the most 
backing (A or B), as compared with other pairs, then counting 1 for A>B 
and 1 for B>A displays the same interest as if these two votes were 
actually A>B and B>A.

> 
>>>Maybe
>>>there's also a strategic advantage from intransitive rankings, and
>>>Donald wants voters to have access to that option by allowing them to
>>>vote A>B, B>C, C>A.
>>>
>>Well, I don't think that's what Donald wants.  Moreover, it seems absurd
>>to  give an individual voter the ability to submit an ambiguous ballot.
>>Cyclic  ties can make sense for an electorate, but they can't make sense
>>for a sane  individual.
>>
> 
> No, that's probably not what Donald wants, but I was giving as much
> benefit of the doubt as possible.
> 

First I have heard of voters seeing anything different between IRV and 
Condorcet ballots - the strategy discussions are about how you choose to vote.
      I have written based on the assumption that they are identical, and 
do not remember anyone correcting me.
      Nor can I imagine a voting method that demanded voting pair by pair 
ever selling or being useful.

> 
> Alex

-- 
davek at clarityconnect.com  http://www.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.