[EM] simplcity of range v condorcet

[Rob Lanphier]

On Sat, 2005-08-13 at 23:48 -0400, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:35:19 -0700 Rob Lanphier wrote:
> > 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.

I don't make the rules in this world; I'm just pointing out the way
things are.

> 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.

I should amend this.  I don't think we in any way try to obfuscate
things, or stop trying to come up with ways of making this all seem very
simple and straightforward.  I'm saying that there are going to be some
people who just won't get it, won't try to get it, but will trust the
advice of a trusted expert.  Different people have different learning
styles and ways of working in the world.  Some people want to understand
for themselves, some people want to hear it from someone they trust.  

Part of the reason why I'm such a stickler about accuracy and
self-reflection among Condorcet advocates is because I'm hoping we can
get a reputation as fair-minded experts as opposed to "true believers"
who warp the facts in order to sell Condorcet.  So, hopefully, when
people are looking for someone they trust to sort all of this stuff out,
they trust us.

> 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.

It's only as believable as the person making the claim.  We really can't
ignore this tactic.

> > 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.

Aiming to please ;-)

Rob