[EM] Newbie de-lurks to propose a clone-proof Borda method

Dave Ketchum davek at clarityconnect.com
Thu May 26 08:49:37 PDT 2005

On Thu, 26 May 2005 10:02:49 +0200 Jobst Heitzig wrote:

> Welcome to the list, Ken!
> You wrote:
>>the fundamental problem with
>>plain Condorcet is that it doesn't directly take into consideration which 
>>position candidates are ranked in.
> Well, I would rather say that this is the main *advantage* of methods
> which consider pairwise preferences and/or approval scores instead of
> rank positions, because the rank position per se has no significance at
> all!
> The fundamental problem of methods based on rank positions is that
> position k on one ballot can mean a completely different thing than
> position k on another ballot. In my opinion, rank positions must never
> be confused with utilities or ratings!

I second this -

Given a preference for Kerry over Bush, this gets stated in each ballot 
that shows the preference.  Trying to read something different about this 
as stated in K>B K>N>B N>K>B or A>B>K>C>D>B or even N>K does not help.

> However, I am quite eager to know what method you propose. Could you
> please repost it since I seem to have missed your original posting?

As he says in the subject, he aims to improve Borda.

As to partial ballots, the voter has chosen to rank those not mentioned 
together, equally, below all those mentioned.

> Yours, Jobst

  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.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list