[EM] simplcity of range v condorcet

[Rob Lanphier]

On Sat, 2005-08-13 at 19:13 -0500, Paul Kislanko wrote:
> "Shortest computer program" is not a criterion that any voter would care
> about. 
>
> "Rules for voters" and "specification for counting programs" are two
> different things.  

In fairness, the specification for counting votes is something that
voters will probably care about, and it is one of the biggest
liabilities of Condorcet.  Part of the uphill battle for Condorcet
advocates is to convince people that even if they don't understand
exactly how it works, it's still a better system (the tactic I've
usually advocated is endorsement from trusted smart people).

The rules for voters are much simpler for Condorcet than under Range.
Under Range, failure to employ some counterintuitive strategies will
lead to a weakening of your vote (i.e. you should pretend it's
approval).  Under Condorcet, sincerity is almost always optimal, which
is tough to beat from a simplicity standpoint.

Rob


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com 
> > [mailto:election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com
> > ] On Behalf Of Warren Smith
> > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 6:58 PM
> > To: election-methods-electorama.com at electorama.com
> > Subject: [EM] simplcity of range v condorcet
> > 
> > It was recently claimed on EM that condorcet had "simpler rules" than
> > range.  I dispute that.  I challenge people to write computer
> > programs to perform condorcet and range elections.   I have so
> > far never encountered anybody who produced a shorter program 
> > for condorcet.
> > Not even close.
> > 
> > For any condorcet method whatever, but espcially for some of the
> > fancier ones.
> > wds
> > ----
> > Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em 
> > for list info
> > 
> 
> 
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info