[EM] Condorcet complicated?

[Paul Kislanko]

I mentioned that not only because of Dr. Tideman's study, but also because
at least one definition I read (on this list) described a voting method as a
mapping of ballots to results.

That many different sets of ballots can result in the same pairwise matrix
is something that could be perceived as a problem. In many of the examples
I've seen, I'd have chosen a different winner than one of the cycle-breaking
methods does based upon the specific the ballot configuration - which is not
available to any method that starts counting after the pairwise matrix is
formed.

I don't mean to argue for or against any method, I just pointed out that
this is something that can't be explained away, and some people won't like
it. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com 
> [mailto:election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com
> ] On Behalf Of Eric Gorr
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 4:25 PM
> To: election-methods-electorama.com at electorama.com
> Subject: RE: [EM] Condorcet complicated?
> 
> At 2:14 PM -0700 10/14/04, bql at bolson.org wrote:
> >I've never heard of anyone wanting to take results and map 
> them back to 
> >ballots.
> 
> There has been at least one study by Dr. Tideman which did 
> exactly this.
> 
> It can be a useful thing as long as people take into account 
> the fact that there can be many sets of ballots which are 
> capable of producing the same pairwise matrix.
> 
> --
> == Eric Gorr ========= http://www.ericgorr.net ========= 
> ICQ:9293199 === "Therefore the considerations of the 
> intelligent always include both benefit and harm." - Sun Tzu 
> == Insults, like violence, are the last refuge of the 
> incompetent... ===
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em 
> for list info
>