[EM] Condorcet for public proposals - Tounament

Adam Tarr atarr at purdue.edu
Thu Jan 29 17:48:02 PST 2004

Dave Ketchum wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:38:15 -0500 Adam Tarr wrote:
>>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,
>My dictionary says the kind of round robin we are discussing is a kind of 
>      Point for you in being more precise.
>      I still like tournament, seeing it as correct and more salable.

Fine by me.

>Golf has tournaments in which many, if not all, players play at the same 
>time, and their score is the sum of what they do over many holes.

True, although that's not a good analogy because there are no pairwise 
comparisons going on (except in match play, when golf does become a single 
elimination event).

>>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.
>      Each referee (voter) gets one vote as to which is best.

(other such examples snipped)

Oh, come on.  The point was to have an analogy.  If we're voting on who 
wins, then that's not an analogy, that's the same thing.


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list