[EM] "scored condorcet", etc

Rob Brown rob at karmatics.com
Mon Nov 21 14:33:34 PST 2005

Kevin Venzke <stepjak <at> yahoo.fr> writes:

> The problem I see is that the best Condorcet rankings-only
> methods seem to have already been invented. So unless your
> method is going to be sub-par, you have to agree with one 
> of them for the first position.

Hmmm.  Well from my point of view, not producing scores makes a
method sub-par.  So beatpath etc. are sub-par in that respect....

But I'm curious....what makes you say that all the best have been 
invented? I sorta figured that if you come at it with a different
approach (that scores are a required feature), it may provide new
insights into better methods.  To me, scored methods are also
inherently more "tunable". For instance, you can easily mix two
scored methods together to "smooth out" their problems.
> If you don't like the inconsistency of mixing methods, you
> could go with my other suggestion, to score based on the number
> of bullet votes needed to make a given candidate into the 
> beatpath(wv) winner. This is just potentially a lot harder to
> calculate.

Hmmmm.....not sure I want to go there.  :)

> Using this rule, the winner could be assigned a negative score,
> if yo wanted, since it's likely that the winner could sacrifice
> some bullet votes (assuming some actually exist) and still win.

Yeah, I thought about that and would certainly want to do that.


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list