[EM] thoughts on the pairwise matrix

Dave Ketchum davek at clarityconnect.com
Mon Nov 28 20:33:40 PST 2005

You are mixing two topics:

By "wrong" I assume you mean counting something different than what was 
voted, accidentally due to carelessness, or deliberately for evil reasons.

Certainly an important topic, but such wrongs are possible regardless of 
election method and DO NEED attention.

A second topic is whether voters are PERMITTED to vote their desires 
reasonably completely and understandably - here method matters.  A 
frequent occurrence is three competitive candidates, A, B, and C, with the 
voter seeing A as desirable, B as tolerable, and C as INtolerable:
      Plurality - voter cannot SAY that both A and B are better than C
      Approval - voter cannot SAY that A is better than B AND both are 
better than C.
      Condorcet - voter CAN say A>B>C.

So we need BOTH:
      A method that lets voters express their desires AND
      Demand that whatever we vote does get counted.


On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:54:27 -0600 Paul Kislanko wrote:

>>Rob Brown wrote:
>>Isn't the fact that Condorcet methods ignore ballot positions 
>>relative to 
>>the "whole field of alternatives" the whole beauty of what Condorcet
>>methods do?
> That's my reason to distrust them. What is "beuatiful" about getting my vote
> wrong?

  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list