[EM] "scored condorcet", etc

Rob Brown rob at karmatics.com
Tue Nov 22 16:16:16 PST 2005

Kevin Venzke <stepjak <at> yahoo.fr> writes:
> Actually plurality only fails half of it. Plurality isn't sensitive to
> cloning losers.

Ok, well what plurality does with cloning winners is so bad that it results in
the partisan stuff that we have today in Washington and elsewhere.

> > Minmax....seems to me that it would only affected by clone candidates in
> > the
> > most contrived situations.  I think that saying that something "fails",
> > without
> > saying "how badly it fails", is misleading.
> Ok. MinSum fails clone independence "badly."

Ok, I can see your point, and I appreciate your satisfying my need to a see 
qualifier.  :)

However, I'm still unable to picture the real world consequenses of
minsum/dodgson's problems. Similar candidates would help each other, as opposed
to hurting each other as they do in plurality.  Since it requires a
non-condorcet winner for this to even have an effect, how much of a real effect
would this have?

The biggest question for me is whether a method would reduce (or eliminate) the
ugly and destructive partisanship we see in government (at least in the US).  I
don't claim to know how dodgson would compare to minmax or beatpath in that
respect.  But that's what I'm more interested in knowing.

> I understand that marketability/explicability is important. But is MinSum
> really that great here? I think it would be easier to explain MinMax(wv)
> (which satisfies plurality and fails minimal defense "only a little").

I have no problem with MinMax, I only explored MinSum, which I now see is called
Dodgson, because I hadn't seen it discussed.  Minmax is fine.

> Well, if we're going to use something so complicated as a tun-o-matic
> system with harmony factors, it should make little difference whether
> MinSum (for example) is easy to understand on its own.

Maybe my description was a bit fanciful, but I still think there is potential
value in the idea of tunability.  What I think helps people understand things is
graphical output.  If you could look at the output of an election (or fictional
election) as a bar graph, then drag little sliders to explore "what-if"
scenarios with different settings and watch the bar graph adjust in real
time...well... I think you'd be surprised at what people can grasp.

In any case, it is the graphical output (and hence scores), not the tunability,
that is my main concern.


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list