[EM] simplcity of range v condorcet

[Dave Ketchum]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:35:19 -0700 Rob Lanphier wrote:

> 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).


Seems to me that the above unreasonably penalizes Condorcet.

We care not how complex the implementation of the counting program may be, 
so long as it does its task in reasonable time and reasonable expense AND 
that what it accomplishes is describable to voters.

Mostly this program is counting the pairs, to declare the best of all to 
be winner.

When there is a near tie there is more effort, but major voter concern is 
that we only get here on true near ties, and resolve such based on the 
votes, and not some human's preference.

"endorsement from trusted smart people" is NOT something we should claim. 
  We SHOULD have a description of what the counting does that is both true 
and understandable without depending on some nonbelievable claim of 
trustworthiness.

> 
> 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.


These words please me more.

> 
> 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

-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.