3-valued Booleans inside rules, passing Condorcet (Re: [EM] "More often" (was: IRV and Condorcet operating identically)

[Dave Ketchum]

On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 02:08:12 +1300 Craig Carey wrote in part:

> At 03\03\02 02:38 -0500 Sunday, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>  >On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 09:58:47 +1300 Craig Carey wrote in part:
>  >> At 03\03\01 09:49 -0500 Saturday, Stephane Rouillon wrote:
> ...
>  >> about an election having only the papers (AB), (B), and (C). For
>  >> that election, the Condorcet method has an undefined region of
>  >> quite a big size.
>  >
>  >Seems like "undefined region" is an unfortunate label.  Agreed that
>  >Condorcet has cycles, and that its basic definition allows these to exist
>  >but does not provide a resolution for them.
>  >
>  >STILL, this problem is recognized and I do not hear anyone being dumb
>  >enough to propose actual use of Condorcet without completing the
>  >definition of the method by specifying how to process cycles (while it is
>  >true that there is debate as to exactly what to do with them).
> ...
> 
> It is not OK to say that
>    it would be dumb to use Condorcet because: it can't always return the
>    right number of winners.
> 
> Condorcet could be quite good under fairness testing that got weakened
> to forgive it for whenever the rule probed into its region that got the
> wrong number of winners.
> 
> Fixing it is a no gain situation. I myself weaken tests so that
> Condorcet slumps if fixed.


I do not see "weaken tests" as being an acceptable response to a method 
being incomplete.  Also, I do not understand (or likely need to 
understand) "slumps" as used here.

I brought up IRV (see below) as a topic to emphasize necessity for methods 
to be complete before being offered for use in actual elections (and, if 
the goal is anything less than public elections, I do not get enough 
amusement from EM to be worth bothering).

Thus, to be complete as a method, Condorcet must provide for returning the 
required number of winners - something those serious about Condorcet do 
attend to.

> 
> 
>  >IRV also has an undefined region, while smaller - what to do when two weak
>  >candidates are equal, and thus neither can be discarded as weakest.
> ...
> 
> IRV is Mr Ritchie's method isn't it?.
> 
... (Craig offers thoughts on methods to solve this problem of ties).


In another post, James Gilmour offers the solution used in public 
elections in the UK.

> 
> This whole topic of ties is so easy.
> 

It is easy if AND ONLY IF it is attended to before declaring the method to 
be complete and ready to be used in an actual election.

There is no acceptable solution if method completion is left until an 
actual election displays the lack and no decision can be made without 
human input - human input that cannot be guaranteed free from human bias.

> 
> 
> Craig Carey

-- 
  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.

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