[EM] Condorcet for public proposals - Tounament

Adam Tarr atarr at purdue.edu
Wed Jan 28 12:39:02 PST 2004

At 02:20 PM 1/28/2004 -0500, Rob Speer wrote:

>I also approve of the word "tournament".

Tournament isn't bad, but I think it's a trifle inaccurate, since nearly 
all sporting tournaments (College World series and a few others being 
notable exceptions) are single elimination.  While a single elimination 
matchup voting scheme would be Condorcet compliant, it's not what we're 
really advocating.

I prefer "round robin voting" or "matchup voting", but I think "tournament 
voting" is OK too,

>In fact, here's a way I sometimes explain Condorcet vs. plurality:
>Say you have a bunch of basketball teams, and you want to find out which
>one is the best. Do you have them all run onto a court at once and fight
>over the ball? No - you have them compete two at a time, and hold a
>Current plurality voting is like all the teams running onto the court at
>once. Condorcet is like a round robin tournament.

It seems like boxing is an easier analogy.  Say you have ten boxers and you 
want to know who is the best.

Plurality - throw them in the ring, the last one standing is the winner.

IRV - have a referee in the ring who pulls out anyone who's getting badly 
beaten.  Last one in the ring is the winner.

Borda - the boxer with the most landed punches wins.

Condorcet - have them fight one-on-one in a round robin.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list