[EM] Cardinal Rating Condorcet Loser Elimination

[Dave Ketchum]

There seem to be two possible audiences:
       Those into theory, for which this may have been worth presenting,
but has likely worn out its welcome as something worth studying and debating.
       Those, such as myself, into public elections.  This was an
interesting thought, but my interest expired quickly.

In public elections we need to have the voters understanding the method
well enough to vote intelligently, and to be able to accept declared
winners as appropriate to the vote count totals (which I claim should be
public knowledge shortly after the polls close).  Note - there can be
absentee ballots counted later, BUT, the possible quantity of these should
be publishable election night and, at least for Condorcet, these counts
tell whether the counts are close enough to ties for the absentees to
affect results.

Comparing this method to Condorcet:
       Ranking - voters have to do this with about every method.  Doing
first rank is easier here than with Plurality, for Condorcet does not have
Plurality's spoiler problem, nor even IRV's (I got myself reminded that
odd counts can do odd things even in Cndorcet, but they are extreme oddities).
       Sincerity - best forgotten about with Condorcet, for strategists who
play games with this in Condorcet most likely burn their own fingers.
       Utility, assumed - best forgotten about, for you cannot KNOW why Joe
liked A better than B (the liking could have been part of deciding whether
to rank A above or below B).
       Utility, as a ballot item - best FOUGHT AGAINST, for you have to
build this into the voting equipment, you have to explain to voters what
it is all about, they have to translate their feelings into filling in the
item, and then they will suspect they have been done in by not
understanding this item as well as the politicians down the street.

Dave Ketchum

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 10:30:40 EDT Dgamble997 at aol.com wrote in part:

 > Rob Speer wrote:
 >
 >  >Didn't we hear this same debate, oh, a week ago? And the week before
 >  >that? It seems like every thread on this list eventually turns into
 >  >"Weak centrist!" "Condorcet winner!" "Weak centrist!" "Condorcet winner!"
 >
 >  >Unless someone's providing some new information (like, say, the results
 >  >of an experiment to _find out_ whether people prefer a weak centrist or
 >  >a Condorcet non-winner), there is no value to repeating the argument.
 >
 > What I was trying to do in my original post was give details of a method
 > which gives high utility centrist, low first preference vote- winner (
 > as in Condorcet ) and low utility centrist, low first preference vote-
 > loser ( as in IRV ).

-- 
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.