[EM] Re the "official" definition of "condorcet"

[Chris Benham]

Warren,
You  quoted:

>1. condorcet.org definitions page:
>"Name: Condorcet Criterion 
>Application: Ranked Ballots 
>Definition: 
>If an alternative pairwise beats every other alternative, this alternative must win the election. 
>Pass: Black, Borda-Elimination, Dodgson, Kemeny-Young, Minmax, Nanson (original), Pairwise-Elimination , Ranked Pairs, Schulze, Smith//Minmax, Sum of Defeats 
>Fail: Borda, Bucklin, Coombs, IRV"
>
And remarked:

>(Note that, revealingly, they do not consider range voting or
>plurality voting to either pass or fail.)
>
Maybe you missed  "Application: Ranked Ballots".   Blake Cretney doesn't 
classify  RV or  plurality voting (aka FPP) as ranked-ballot methods. 
He  is  referring only to methods that
reduce to  FPP  when there are  two candidates, so  there is no 
ambiguity  about his  meaning of  "pairwise beats".

For  a method  to meet the CC, it must allow the voters to express all  
their pairwise  (binary) preferences  or in other words their full 
ranking. That cuts out FPP, Approval and
limited-slot  ballot methods with fewer available slots than there are 
candidates.  Then  it must elect  any candidate that pairwise beats all 
the others.  X  pairwise beats Y  if  more
voters rank X above Y  than vice versa.  No  ambiguity that I can see.

A Range Voting ballot  with many more available slots than there are 
candidates does allow the voter  to give his/her full rankings. It can 
be regarded as simply a ranked ballot
with some extra extraneous ratings information on it.  But just because 
RV uses this extra information,  I  don't see any need  to  
"generalize"  the  CC  to  accommodate it.


>This no-hyperlink choice is in fact a plausible way to go because then the condorcet 
>criterion is about the logical self-consistency of a method, as opposed to the consistency 
>of method A as judged using method B, which is kind of an unfair pre-biased way to judge A.
>
Voting methods don't have any feelings or rights, so  therefore this 
alleged  "unfairness"  doesn't matter.


Chris  Benham








>  
>