[centroids] [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - Tounament

[Chris Hahn]

My suggestion about a better name: Ranked Voting or Ranked Voting Method, etc.

I am not too excited about tournament or instant matchup.

Tournament sounds like a game rather than something more serious.  Instant Matchup is a technically better name than Ranked Voting, but it requires the public to think too deeply to the next level. They have to think about how the winner is actually selected rather than what they have to do when they go to the polls.  When they go to the polls they rank the candidates.  They can understand that easily, therefore Ranked Voting or Vote Ranking is an understandable name.  

Those who care to understand how and why the results are matched will really "get it" and be the biggest advocates.  The general populace will be happy with the knowledge that by using a Ranked Voting system they are being better represented.  The superficial understanding will be all they need or want.

That is my 2 cents worth for now.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: "Ernest Prabhakar"<drernie at mac.com>
To: "Dave Ketchum"<davek at clarityconnect.com>
Cc: election-methods-electorama.com at electorama.com, "Anthony Duff"<anthony_duff at yahoo.com.au>
Date: Tue Jan 27 21:28:52 PST 2004
Subject: Re: [centroids] [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - Tounament

>Hi Dave,
>
>Thanks for the input, very helpful.  More comments below:
>
>On Jan 27, 2004, at 7:29 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>> I like what Ernest writes, though I see a bit of room for improvement 
>> and suggest "tournament" as a less foreign-sounding title (even though 
>> its ancestry is also French).
>
>Hmm, maybe.  It is better than Condorcet, but to me tournament evokes 
>an image of knights jousting on horses.
>
>Someone (sorry, I forgot who) suggested the word Pairwise is important. 
>    I could live with the name Pairwise Matchup Voting (PMV). Pairwise 
>by itself seems too vague, somehow
>
>>> Yeah, my friends (on the radical centrist list) are unanimous that 
>>> the term Condorcet has to go. :-)
>>> I have been proposing the term 'Instant Matchup Voting', or IMV, by 
>>> analogy with Instant Runoff Voting. I compare it to a round-robin 
>>> tournament, which most people have direct experience with.  I think 
>>> this leads to a simple, easy to visualize definition:
>>
>> Ahead of much that I have seen, but I suggest tournament as even 
>> easier to visualize from.  My definition will follow yours.
>
>Well, tournament does have the idea of a series of matches, but not 
>necessarily individual pairwise matchups, I don't think.    We could 
>use the term Instant Round-Robin, which is much more explicit, but IRR 
>is too close to IRV. :-(
>
>> IMV:
>>
>>> 1. Each rank-ordered ballot is interpreted as a series of "Instant 
>>> Matchups"
>>>     That is A > B > C, implies one point each for the three pairwise 
>>> Matchups A > B, B > C, and A > C
>>>     Note that "A>B" is counted separately from "B>A" (i.e., winning 
>>> votes)
>>> 2. Tally up the N * (N-1) Matchups, for each ordered pair of 
>>> candidates
>>> 3.  If one candidate beats everyone, that's the absolute winner
>>> 4. If there is a 'rock-paper-scissors' tie (A >= B, B >= C, C >= A),
>>>     the tiebreaking winner is the candidate from that group with the 
>>> 'least greatest defeat'
>> Tournament:
>> 0. Voters simply rank as many of the candidates as they choose, 
>> starting with their most-preferred.
>> 1. Each rank-ordered ballot is interpreted as a series of matches 
>> among all
>> candidates in the election:
>>     That is, ranking A > B > C, and D and E not ranked by this voter,
>> implies each ranked candidate winning over each candidate ranked 
>> later, and
>> over each unranked candidate.
>>
>>      Thus unranked candidates do not get counted as ranked over each 
>> other.
>
>That's a good point. I don't think we usually spend enough time 
>explaining how the ranking is supposed to work, so it would be good to 
>be more explicit.
>
>>     Note that "A>B" is counted separately from "B>A" (i.e., winning 
>> votes).
>> 2. Tally up the number of wins for each ordered pair of candidates in 
>> an
>> N*N array (with an empty diagonal, for candidates do not play against 
>> themselves).
>
>Good point, N*N does reduce explanation.
>>
>> 3. If one candidate wins when compared with each other candidate, 
>> that's
>> the absolute winner.
>> 4. If no absolute winner, we have a 'rock-paper-scissors' near tie 
>> such as
>> (A >= B, B >= C, C >= A), and the tiebreaking winner is the candidate 
>> from
>> that group with the 'least greatest defeat'.
>>
>> NOTE:  I consider 'least greatest defeat' unacceptably opaque for this 
>> purpose, and ask for help in providing simpler words.
>
>Fair enough.    How about "whose worst loss is the smallest"?    Or 
>simply "lost by the smallest margin" (a little ambiguous, but sounds 
>simpler) - can always go into more detail elsewhere.
>
>
>> BTW:  Debatable whether voters should be permitted to rank candidates 
>> as equal.
>
>Is there any good reason not to?  Implicit equal ranking certainly 
>makes it clearer about how unlisted candidates are counted.   Any if at 
>all possible, it seems good to give people the option of equality 
>rather than forcing a random choice.    Has anyone presented a clear 
>argument for or against equal ranking?
>
>>   If so then, for each pair of equal candidates, count 1/2 win for 
>> each (thus if two voters rank A=B=C then A>B, B>A, A>C, C>A, B>C, and 
>> C>B each get credited one full win).
>
>That doesn't make any sense to me.   If two candidates are ranked, I 
>think that neither should get the win -- at least if we're doing 
>winning votes (wv) For example, if all the candidates that most people 
>don't rank at the bottom of the list get a win against each other, then 
>one single vote in favor could make that person the 'wv' winner!  
>Right?
>
>Any more thoughts on the implications of Smith PC on strategy, assuming 
>we can hammer out a decent, simple explanation?
>
>-- Ernie P.
>


___________________________________________________
Check-out GO.com
GO get your free GO E-Mail account with expanded storage of 6 MB!
http://mail.go.com