[EM] Center for Range Voting Formed

[Adam Tarr]

On 8/11/05, Warren Smith <wds at euclid.math.temple.edu> wrote:

> But it does not correct the so-called dishonesty you said.
> But I am not being dishonest.
> 
> It was not dishonesty, it was simply reaching a higher level of
> mental sophistication.
> 
> Condorcet did not realize anything other than <,=,> relation voting was 
possible.
> If that is the only kind of voting you have ever heard of, then the TWO 
definitions
> of "condorcet method" I gave become equivalent.
> If however we try to generalize the Condorcet concept
> to allow more general kinds of voting (such as RV)
> then it suddenly dawns on you that the definition of "condorcet method"
> now (when we generalize it to handle these systems) can be generalized in 
two
> different ways. I have fully honestly (unlike you) mentioned both ways.

There are lots of things Condorcet was not aware of. That's not relevant. 
Wgat us relevant is that there is only one generally accepted understanding 
of what a Condorcet-compliant method is. And neither of your ways are it.

A Condorcet method is a method where, if a majority expresses a preference 
for one candidate over any other candidate, then that candidate will win.

That's the definition. It does NOT involve a hypothetical second election. 
It does not involve who would "win" between two candidates by any of the 
infinite possible voting methods. Just who is preferred by a majority 
according to the ballots. That's the definition. You may not like it, but if 
you want to claim you are comparing range voting to Condorcet, then you 
should adhere to it.

> You have by mentioning only one way, only been partially honest.
> OK? (You rubbed me the wrong way there.)

You're 0/2 on an "honest" definition. (Honest is admittedly a needlessly 
inflammatory word.) This does not mean that there aren't advantages to range 
voting, especially in the case where voters can be trusted to vote honestly 
(particularly small groups with public ballots). But you are simply not 
defining the criteria in a standard way.

But what you should do is get rid of the two definitions, define Condorcet 
properly, and then move on to your example of why Range is not Condorcet.

-Adam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20050811/7d54212c/attachment-0003.htm>