[EM] Condorcet strategy

[Eric Gorr]

At 1:05 PM -0500 5/28/04, Fan de Condorcet wrote:
>James,
>
>>  How do you define the runner up? How would beatpath strength translate
>>  into a time-share?
>
>That's a good question, especially since Ranked Pairs and Schulze's method,
>as they're usually explained, don't specify how to determine anything other
>than the winner.  I wasn't very clear.  Sorry about that.
>
>In Ranked Pairs, we could determine the runner-up by locking all victories
>that haven't been contradicted, creating a social ranking, and declaring the
>second candidate to be listed on that ranking to be the runner-up.

Even if you do this, there is no guarantee of a unique second place.

>If Schulze were used to find the winner, then the candidate who, apart from
>the winner, loses the fewest comparisons of strongest beatpaths could be
>declared the runner-up.

I am guessing there are going to be cases here as well where the 
second place finisher would not be unique.


The only well supported way of determining a social ordering of the 
candidates is the method described by MAM, which utilizes the Random 
Voter Hierarchy. Again, the social ordering will not necessarily be 
unique. However, it will be defensible.