# [EM] Displaying intermediate results in Condorcet-based elections (re: Rob Brown's original question)

Forest Simmons fsimmons at pcc.edu
Fri Nov 7 17:24:02 PST 2003

```On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Rob Lanphier wrote:

> Rob Brown wrote:
>
> > As I think we all agree, if you can pick a single winner, you should
> > by straightforward extension be able to rank all the candidates.  In
> > ranking the candidates we have, then, linearized the matrix.  If it
> > can be linearized in a reasonable way, I believe it can be done such
> > that each candidate has not only an order, but a scalar dimension,
> > i.e. a score -- in an equally reasonable way, that does not conflict
> > with the ordering.  Maybe this is a naive leap of logic (or maybe
> > intuition) on my part, but I have yet to see an argument which leads
> > me to believe otherwise.
>
> Here's a suggestion:  "votes back" from the leader (similar to "games
> back" in baseball).  It's intuitive, it lends itself to bar charts, and
> it means something significant and tangible.  It's the minimum number of
> votes that would have to be added in order to make a given candidate the
> frontrunner.

I think that our modest and congenial host has the best suggestion so far,
and it would work for any deterministic method, Condorcet or not.

However, it might be computationally intractable to find a minimal set of
ballots that (when added to the existing ballots) would tip the scales in
favor of candidate X.

So I suggest that we count how many "bullet ballots" for X are needed
(over and above the actual ballots) to make X the winner.

This would work for any method that allows for truncated ballots.

Forest

```