[EM] RE : Re: simpler proof of "no conflict theorem" now trivial

[Kevin Venzke]

Hello,

--- Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd at lomaxdesign.com> a écrit :
> >"The Condorcet candidate or Condorcet winner of an election is the
> >candidate who, when compared in turn with each of the other
> >candidates, is preferred over the other candidate."

I am fairly certain this wording comes from electionmethods.org, where
"is preferred over" was used to mean "is preferred by more voters to
[someone] than vice versa." It's definitely a problem if this isn't
understood.

> I'll say my assertion that Approval and Plurality satisfy the 
> Condorcet Criterion was ... provocative. Here is the basis for it.
> 
> Practical election methods and their ballots are limited in the 
> number of ranks which may be expressed. For example, does a write-in 
> candidate have a prayer of success in a "fully ranked" method; 
> "fully-ranked" implies that all candidates are compared; but the 
> printed ballots would not have the write-in candidate on them; the 
> number of potential write-in candidates is, of course, enormous, and, 
> quite possibly, one or more of them would be well-known and liked 
> sufficiently to be the true "Condorcet Winner."

"Fully ranked" need only mean that all the candidates may be compared.
If deficiencies of the ballot are an issue, you could assume instead
that a "fully ranked" method is meant to operate on write-in votes only.

Bringing up this issue already interprets that the Condorcet criterion is
defined on cast ballots rather than sincere preferences.

Kevin Venzke


	
 p4.vert.ukl.yahoo.com uncompressed/chunked Thu Aug 17 15:14:01 GMT 2006 
	
		
___________________________________________________________________________ 
Découvrez un nouveau moyen de poser toutes vos questions quelque soit le sujet ! 
Yahoo! Questions/Réponses pour partager vos connaissances, vos opinions et vos expériences. 
http://fr.answers.yahoo.com