[EM] ironclad pro-Condorcet argument?
davek at clarityconnect.com
Tue Aug 24 08:49:50 PDT 2004
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:
>>>Another positive argument for Condorcet-consistency
>>>uses the single-elimination pairwise voting procedure
>>>recommended by Robert's Rules,
>>>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.
> 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
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.
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.
More information about the Election-Methods