[EM] "scored condorcet", etc

Rob Lanphier robla at robla.net
Tue Nov 22 13:29:13 PST 2005

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 20:34 +0000, Rob Brown wrote:
> Kevin Venzke <stepjak <at> yahoo.fr> writes:
> > Beatpath(wv) satisfies clone independence, monotonicity,
> > plurality, minimal defense, Condorcet Loser, Local IIA,
> > always elects from Schwartz, always elects from the CDTT..
> > It'll be very hard to meet the same properties if you
> >  design method from scratch.

> I don't question that meeting lots of criteria is good, but sometimes I question
> whether some of the people on this list tend to see things in such black and
> white terms that they are really missing some important points.

In my experience, when Kevin rattles off a list of failed criteria, it's
only a matter of time before he comes up with an example that shows you
why at least one of them is really, really important.

If all you're looking for is something better than IRV that can be
boiled down to a single score, you're better off going with Approval or
Range.  My sense is that by insisting on shoehorning a Condorcet winner
method into a single score, you're treating the Condorcet winner
criterion as an absolute priority, while ignoring all of the others.
There are good reasons to believe that the other criteria are at least
as important as the Condorcet winner criterion.


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list