[EM] Re: Condorcet package-wvx

[Dave Ketchum]

With "Condorcet package" I tried for a complete package for public 
elections.  Got one complete response which I read as general agreement, 
except for whether/how to count a=b.

I remain interested in comments about the package, other than about a=b.

I am adding "-wvx" to the subject to debate a=b - time enough to think 
about labels if my idea, once understood, survives debate.  My thought is 
that a=b expresses interest in this pair, just as a<b or b>a do for wv, 
but ranks them equally and therefore should not affect margins (of which I 
only care about equality vs inequality, but not magnitude).

Has nothing to do with margins, for such counts do not change margins.

Only counting explicit a=b (as each incrementing vote count by .5 for each 
side of that pair) - not counting how many pairs can be made from rejects.

Can combine - can say a=b=c to declare more than 2 - here a & b, a & c, 
and b & c.

Ted talks of margins and relative margins being different - HOW?  He 
offers a definition at 15:54.  Perhaps relative margins would be useful in 
resolving cycles - I hope not.

I have talked of array; Ted talks of pairwise matrix - same thing.  No, 
voter cannot see it, for it is the sum of all the voting in the district 
(state for governor).  It is VALUABLE data for study provided by 
Condorcet, aside from determining winner.

Relevance?  That is a proper topic once we sort out what the basic topic is.

Does counting a=b complicate the counting?  Seems like not a lot - perhaps 
a third number for each pair of candidates, used only in resolving cycles.

Dave Ketchum

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:25:16 -0800 (thru 16:05) Ted Stern wrote:

> On 23 Feb 2005 at 20:25 PST, Kevin Venzke wrote:
> 
>>Dave,
>> --- Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com> a écrit : 
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>It's called "Margins" when defeat strength is measured as the vote
>>difference.  With WV, the defeat strength is the number of votes for the
>>winning side; in this case, it would be 5 votes.
>>
>>
>>>I have the = making a have a total of 8 votes, useful (I think) in deciding
>>>how to untangle cycles, should that be needed.
>>>
>>A potential problem is that it becomes unclear how many people actually
>>voted a>b.
>>
>>Kevin Venzke
>>
> [CC: Steve Eppley, Markus Schulze, Rob LeGrand, election-methods list]
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> As Kevin has pointed out, by counting a=b as a>b + b>a, winning votes (wv)
> acquires some characteristics of relative margins (rm).  With your tabulation
> rule, the margin doesn't change, but the winning vote totals do.

> 
> IMO, 'a=b' indicates equal preference, equivalent to abstention from the
> pairwise election.  In other words, it's a vote to consider that particular
> contest AFTER all other considerations.  That should be true whether one ranks
> defeats using wv or rm.  
> 
> I have noticed this tabulation disagreement before, e.g. Rob LeGrand's voting
> calculator (http://cec.wustl.edu/~rhl1/rbvote/calc.html).  I've looked around
> briefly for an authoritative differentiation between the two tabulation rules,
> but aside from discussion on this list I haven't found one, hence the CC's.
> 
> It would be nice to get this misunderstanding cleared up.  Any method
> description or software that uses a non-standard interpretation of equal rank
> tabulation should clearly indicate that it is doing so.  If it is confusing to
> e-m list readers, imagine how confusing it would be to voters!
> 
> Ted

-- 
  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.