[EM] "scored condorcet", etc

[rob brown]

On 11/22/05, Paul Kislanko <kislanko at airmail.net> wrote:
>
> Defend the statement that "Condorcet looks at ALL that the voters say". No
> method that begins counting from a pairwise matrix can do that.
> Furthermore,
> there are numerous "Condorcet" methods because there are numerous ways to
> distinguish between the cycles created when ONLY the pairwise matrix is
> used.


If I may jump in -- I have to take issue that Condorcet "doesn't look at all
the voters have to say" because it "begins counting" with the pairwise
matrix.

It begins counting with the ballots.  By the time it gets to the pairwise
matrix, it has certainly eliminated a lot of data, having distilled possibly
several megabytes of data into a few kilobytes or less (depending on how
many candidates and how many ballots).  But then, it has to distill it
further, into maybe a single byte of data (assuming there are less than 256
candidates).

Somewhere along the line, information has to be pared down and eliminated.
The pairwise matrix is an intermediate step between having several megs (all
the ballots) and 1 byte (a winner). I'm not sure I understand why having an
intermediate step is such a problem.

-rob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20051122/65701adc/attachment-0003.htm>