[EM] ironclad pro-Condorcet argument?

[Dave Ketchum]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 01:06:48 -0700 Steve Eppley wrote:

> Dave K wrote:
> 
>>On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:29:48 -0700 Steve Eppley wrote:
>>
> -snip-
> 
>>>Another positive argument for Condorcet-consistency 
>>>uses the single-elimination pairwise voting procedure 
>>>recommended by Robert's Rules,
>>>
> -snip-
> 
>>>Most of the people reading this, I assume, are aware that 
>>>under the Robert's Rules procedure, the Condorcet winner 
>>>(when there is one) will be chosen, assuming either 
>>>that every voter votes sincerely or that every voter is 
>>>strategically sophisticated and knows the preferences 
>>>of all the voters.
>>>
>>HUH???  The Robert's example is IRV.
>>

AND, they express dislike for Condorcet by their example voting procedure 
for preferential voting - the procedure shared by IRV and Condorcet.


> -snip-
> 
> No, I wasn't referring to the Robert's Rules IRV example
> of "preferential voting" that they reluctantly recommend 
> when the members are scattered, as in a mail-in vote
> (when better methods are impractical, or so they thought
> when that section was written long ago).  I was referring 
> to their main method, recommended for use when the 
> members are assembled together and hence it's practical
> to use a method that requires multiple rounds of voting.  
> This method is sometimes called "agenda voting" and 
> sometimes called "sequential pairwise voting."  It
> doesn't ask the voters to express orders of preference.
> And it's like a single-elimination tournament, not 
> a round-robin tournament.  


Please tell me exactly where they, inconsistently, express approval for 
Condorcet.

What I see is repeated balloting of the entire question - not even 
deletion of weakest candidates, as would earn the label "runoff".

> 
> Here's a simple example:  Someone proposes a bill and 
> someone else proposes an amended version of the bill.  
> In the first round of voting, those two alternatives 
> would be pitted against each other.  The loser of 
> that vote would be eliminated.  The winner of that 
> vote would go on to the next round of voting, 
> a vote between it and the status quo.


This example is not Condorcet - in Condorcet all the versions of the bill 
would contend in a single election.

> 
> --Steve

-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.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.