[EM] Re: Issues about 'personal data' in releasing results of ballots:

Alex Small asmall at physics.ucsb.edu
Sun Nov 23 15:46:17 PST 2003

Diana Galletly said:
>> If you really need ballots, use the Real World Condorcet election
>> ballots that Alex Small was kind enough to post to this list on
>> October 03, 2003. Those voters knew that they were voting in a
>> Condorcet election, so we can assume that they voted accordingly.
> I'll chase them up; I think I have them somewhere.  But was this an edge
> case where any of the paradoxes occurred, or any important criteria
> violated?

Amazingly, the election results I posted had no cyclic ambiguities. 
Pairwise results yielded a complete transitive ranking of all 10
candidates.  I'm pretty sure the winner was also the plurality winner. 
When the plurality winner is also the Condorcet winner, it's quite likely
(though by no means guaranteed) that IRV would have also elected that
candidate.  As for Borda, I don't know what the Borda winner would have
been, but given how many people ranked the winner first or second I'd
guess that even Borda might have given the same outcome in this case.

Criteria:  Since they used a monotonic method there was no monotonicity
paradox, and although I haven't checked I suspect that many of the other
criteria we discuss on this list were satisfied.  In terms of strategic
manipulations, most Condorcet methods are hard to manipulate when there's
already a CW, and easier to manipulate when there's a cycle.  Since there
was a CW, it's unlikely that any interesting strategic dilemmas presented
themselves in this election.

So this was a pretty dull election, amazing only for the lack of any
curious phenomena.


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list