[EM] Condorcet Voting

[Eric Gorr]

At 3:04 PM -0500 1/7/03, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>      I find random ballots acceptable for resolving true ties, 
>assuming the authority conducting the election agrees.  I do not 
>find them acceptable as an excuse for not doing what is possible 
>with Condorcet vote counts.

I agree. No matter what the voting system, a tie will always be a 
potential outcome and it simply may not be practical to repeat a 
vote, especially if it was a preference voting system and people were 
honest, until the tie disappears.

In this case, the only fair way, as near as I can tell, to resolve 
the situation would be through a random selection.

>Eric offered a test case yesterday, and annoyed me by using a method 
>that reported a tie - and which did not please him either.

Actually, it was offered by Stephane Rouillon as a test case for my 
site and I merely repeated it since I found it annoying.

>Steve Barney mentioned "Kemeny's method" yesterday, but did not 
>provide enough defense to convince me that it belongs here.

I found this paper on the web which looked interesting, but I haven't 
gone through it yet. Anyone care to comment?

http://econpapers.hhs.se/article/sprsochwe/v_3A18_3Ay_3A2001_3Ai_3A1_3Ap_3A79-89.htm

or

http://tinyurl.com/46tu

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em