[EM] I think Bishop's deconstruction algorithm fails

Rob Brown rob at karmatics.com
Sun Nov 27 18:45:23 PST 2005

Paul Kislanko <kislanko <at> airmail.net> writes:
> This is my philosophical objection to vote-counting methods that use the
> pairwise-matrix as input. You cannot map the pairwise matrix to the voters'
> ballots unambiguously, so any such method is by definition "not
> transparent". 
> I believe any valid Condorcet-method should be able to be defined without
> reference to the pairwise matrix. Begin with the array of ballots = voters x
> alternatives, and work from there. If you don't begin with ballots, then
> it's not an election-method. 

As I mentioned before, condorcet methods *do* begin with ballots.  The pairwise
matrix is nothing but an intermediate stage between input (all the ballots, lots
of data) and final results (declaration of winner, tiny amount of data).

Anything that processes lots of data into a little data is going to lose some
data along the way (pardon me for stating the obvious).  Condorcet methods just
happen to have an intermediate stage that is viewable and interesting.  I fail
to see how that is a bad thing.

BTW, you say such methods are not transparent, but you seem to be assuming that
the pairwise matrix is all that the public will have access to.  Why can't the
ballots be made accessible as well, just like any of the methods you prefer?


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list