[EM] Re: Condorcet package

[Dave Ketchum]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:37:01 +0100 (CET) Kevin Venzke wrote:

> Dave,
> 
>  --- Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com> a écrit : 
> 
>>>>Counting votes:
>>>>    (wv) seems the appropriate choice.  If two voters rank a pair of 
>>>>candidates (a=b) as equal, then (a>b) and (b>a) should each get one count.
>>>>
> 
> This paragraph is confusing because in WV, a=b is not counted that way.
> 

Ok, so lets call it wvx while we debate whether my idea makes sense.

> 
>>He is ranking them as being tied, as in x>a=b>y.  He likes each better 
>>than y, but not as well as x, but a exactly as well as b.  Does not 
>>matter, except:
>>      I want the array public, and think the counts will be more 
>>reasonable as above.
>>      In resolving cycles I think this makes a difference, and WANT the 
>>above count to avoid pushing voters away from voting a=b.
>>
> 
> Your method *would* push voters away from voting a=b, since the whole point 
> of equal ranking is to *not* strengthen either candidate's win over the other.


A disconnect in thought.  Try:
5 a>b
2 b>a
6 a=b
By not counting the = we have 5:2
With counting them    we have 8:5

The > and < determined that a gets 3 more votes than b - to me, strength 
of a's win over b.

I have the = making a have a total of 8 votes, useful (I think) in 
deciding how to untangle cycles, should that be needed.

> 

> Kevin Venzke

-- 
  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.