[EM] Cheering for simplicity

[Dave Ketchum]

Makes sense for this reflector to serve a variety of interests, but
identifying interests could simplify understanding for many.  In what
follows I will concentrate on US public elections:
       Intellectual reasons - some choose to be here, and some even seem to
make a buck at it - they confuse the rest of us if they present theory as
if holding more general interest than it has.
       Public elections:
            Executive - for a single winner.  These will continue to exist,
but we need to get past Plurality, which most of us recognize as not
deserving to live.
                 I see this as IMPORTANT, and that Condorcet seems to
provide a reasonable combination of power and simplicity.
            PR - for multiple winners for a district.  Many districts are
designed for a single representative, and may stay that way, using same
rules as for executive elections.  Some argue for Proportional
Representation, and debate does not seem yet to produce agreement as to a
winning method.
            Non-partisan city elections - New York City, biggest US city
and bigger than most US states, talks of joining this crowd.  NOT clear
that they have considered the problems/possibilities, or that EM has
thought of trying to help.  Of interest, likely 4 Dem candidates and 1
Rep, based on voter registration and experience with partisan elections -
seems like Plurality might give Reps more wins than they deserve.
            US primary elections - another one I hear little of.  I see
this as a place for Condorcet if topic is single winner.  Note that,
unlike partisan elections for which we are used to two leading parties,
candidates may have any possible relation to each other.
            US presidential elections - a world unto itself.  That each
state has a quota of members of the Electoral College seems cast in stone,
but for a state to fill its quota via PR seems worth some thought.
       Private elections - big deal I notice is that the computers that
make sense for all public elections may not be appropriate here.
       What do other countries do - their successes and failures are worth
noting.
       Marrying single seat and PR methods?  Tempting but:
            ONLY if single seat stays Condorcet.
            PR method must be suitable for that task.

Is Condorcet simple?  I claim YES, especially for the voter:
       1.  Assign first rank to the candidate you most desire to have win
(you do not need to consider what chance this candidate may have of
actually winning).
       2.  Are there more that you like as well - give them the same rank.
       3.  Do you want some control of what happens if those you have
ranked all lose - if so, return to step 1 for the next rank.  Note that
you only rank so far as you choose - you have ranked one or more as better
than the remainder, and the remainder as equally below them.
       This is somewhat like a tournament, with you voting what you see as
the results of a round.  In counting for each pair of candidates, the
number of voters who rank the first above the second is compared with the
number ranking the second above the first.
            If one candidate wins over each other candidate, that one wins.
            If two or more candidates tie against each other, but win
against every other candidate, the tie must get resolved by some means
such as tossing coins.
            Else there will be candidates that win over one or more, and
lose against others.  This is close to a tie, and the counts get compared
to decide on the winner.
            Note for candidates you rank as equal - for each pair, if you
and another voter rank that pair equal, it counts as one win for each
candidate in the pair.

I read 'Most Condorcet-methods are "brute force" computationally.'  Maybe
so, but it is not a black mark, for the computation is trivial - certainly
doable while the next voter is voting, and, for combining results from
multiple precincts for many candidates, less effort than with IRV - for
IRV must consider all the voting patterns while Condorcet can work with a
matrix of totals.  Of course, do a California recall with 135 candidates
and the time could be significant - but IRV has the challenge of all the
patterns that could occur with that many candidates.

I read 'but I have heard of the "traveling salesman" problem' - truly a
champion at eating computer time - but Condorcet and even IRV are not in
that league.

I read "will always include a Condorcet-winner if one exists" - NOT
sufficient - for public election we should be unwilling to settle for less
than picking a winner (unless we have a true tie, or choose to call as a
tie something close to that).


On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:09:17 -0700 (PDT) Forest Simmons wrote, per
subject:  Re: [EM] Cheering for simplicity/Orphan

 > Furthermore, what we call "election methods" have many applications beyond
 > public elections. We call the alternatives "candidates" because that is a
 > colorful case that interests a lot of people.
 >
 > Forest
 >
 > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Alex Small wrote:
 >
 >
 >>John B. Hodges said:
 >>
 >>>Some time back I asked why the folks here worked so hard to find
 >>>other methods of Proportional Representation when we had Party List  and
 >>>STV, which seemed to cover all the necessary bases. People
 >>>responded with their complaints about both methods.
 >>>
 >>Well, many of us are interested in election methods for intellectual
 >>reasons as well as practical reasons.  Yes, we want to see better election
 >>methods implemented, but we are also personally intrigued by some of the
 >>intellectual issues related to election methods.  Devising a different
 >>election method to satisfy some criterion might help us understand what is
 >>necessary in order to satisfy that criterion, and hence why certain
 >>phenomena can occur.
 >>
 >>The hope is that some of this can later be used to inform the design of
 >>simpler election methods, or at least enrich our personal understanding.
 >>Even if we (hypothetically, mind you, let's not open old debates just now)
 >>never proposed anything more complicated than Approval and Party List in
 >>public discussions, a deeper personal understanding would help us when
 >>questions arise.
 >>
 >>Also, there is a small group of professionals who study election methods
 >>for a living.  In any campaign to introduce a new election method
 >>(whatever it might be) we will almost certainly butt heads with some of
 >>them (e.g. Saari).  We need to know what we're talking about.  So an
 >>academic understanding of the deeper mathematical issues is worth having,
 >>and proposing arcane methods for fun on this forum may be a good way to
 >>enhance that understanding.
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>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.