[EM] Re: Condorcet package-wvx

[Ted Stern]

On 24 Feb 2005 at 14:17 PST, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> 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 explained what I understand by the terms winning votes, margins and relative
margins earlier.

Here's my argument about how to count an equal ranking:

Consider the two candidate ballot X1 vs. X2.

A voter can vote for X1, X2, or abstain.  Current public election practice
does not allow the voter to cast fractional votes or multiple votes.  

Say we now are using a ranked ballot.  Leaving the ballot blank (abstaining)
is equivalent to an equal rank X1=X2.  So casting a ranked ballot vote of
X1=X2, which isn't a vote for either X1 or X2, must be equivalent to
abstention.  When a voter has abstained in an election, you don't enter a vote
for either side.  If you want to count the number of abstentions, you can
always subtract the total votes for both candidates from the total number of
ballots.

Now consider the case of 1000 candidates.

Counting X1=X2=X3=...=X1000 as a fractional 0.001 vote for each candidate over
every other is both impractical and nearly pointless.

Counting X1=X2=X3...=X1000 as a vote for each candidate Xi against all other
Xj's goes against the principle of a maximum of one vote per candidate in a
pairwise contest, the real extension of "one person, one vote".  With N
equally ranked candidates, you've created N*(N-1)/2 extra votes.

In my opinion, there may be reasonable fractional vote and whole vote schemes,
but Condorcet (wv) isn't the place to include them.  We're doing a round robin
election here.  It's just an extension of current practice without runoff
eliminations that reduce voter choice.

To summarize:  to me, equal rank implies no vote for any of the equal-ranked
candidates.

Probably we disagree about what equal ranking means.  To me, it means you have
no interest in that particular contest.  You care only about contests upward
or downward in the rankings, and you don't want to enter a vote that could
advantage one of the candidates more than any other at equal rank.  If you
really care about one candidate more than another, you simply rank them higher.

Ted
-- 
Send real replies to
	ted stern at u dot washington dot edu

Frango ut patefaciam -- I break so that I may reveal