[EM] Displaying intermediate results in Condorcet-based elections

[Gervase Lam]

> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:07:12 -0800
> From: Rob Brown <rob at hypermatch.com>
> Subject: Re: [EM] Displaying intermediate results in Condorcet-based
>   elections

> >You just don't want a lot of after-the-fact
> >questions like "How could Sally have lost? She was 'ahead' by 30 points
> >yesterday...."

> However, if Condorcet-based systems were really so erratic and
> unstable that this effect became extremely pronounced,  I don't think
> I'd want to use Condorcet.  Luckily I just don't think this is the case.

>From what I can tell, I think Condorcet methods can be "erratic".  The 
best way I can illustrate this is by using Kemeny-Young.  I can imagine 
the following being the top-most Kemeny-Young scores:

134 A<B<C<D<E
130 C<A<D<E<B
122 E<D<A<B<C

The difference between the scores is not very large.  However, there are 
"major" differences between the three permutations.  This could happen if 
the voters have extremely mixed feelings.  This is a bit like the 
computing phrase "garbage in, garbage out."

OK.  Really I should give a concrete example.  The above is just something 
'random.'

However, on the other side, there was mention on the list about the 
results of the Free State Project vote recently.  Apparently, the results 
were extremely "consistent"!

This post leads me to think about two more problems with the 
Condorcet-to-Scalar method that I mentioned in a previous post.  I might 
post about it tomorrow, unless anybody gets there first...

Thanks,
Gervase.