[EM] Is there a criterion for identical voters casting identical ballots?

[Dave Ketchum]

Looking at the case where two voters see two candidates as about equally 
desirable:
      If one votes A>B, and the other B>A, we count '1' in each of the two 
preferences.
      But, in Condorcet, both could vote A=B:
           I have proposed giving the same count as above for, 
essentially, the same desires.
           I got rejected on EM, the objectors claiming there should be no 
counts for equals.
           Now you refer me to a claim that the count should be twice what 
it would be for A>B plus B>A.

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:07:50 +0200 Juho wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2006, at 8:31 , Dave Ketchum wrote:
> 
> 
>>How did we get here?
>>
>>You talk of a method in which ONE voter can say BOTH A>B AND B>A.
>>
> 
> Yes, either in the sense that both lose to each others or in the  
> sense that both win each others.
> 
You make me think of finding people such as:
      A says "Beer is as good as ale" - probably possible.
      B says "Beer is better than ale" AND "Ale is better than beer" - 
what kind of person would combine these two statements, and what useful 
meaning might we extract from such?

Remember that my words did not include "A=B", something that is permitted 
in Condorcet.
> 
>>Assuming such a method could claim useful value to justify the  
>>headaches of implementing it and making it understood, I have seen  
>>nothing to suggest Condorcet might have such an ability.
> 
> 
> See e.g. http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Tied_at_the_top_rule.
> 
Got us nowhere, for its topic is A=B.

> The reason I discussed this possibility is the fact that it frees the  
> voter from creating an artificial loop and deciding in which  
> direction it should run.
> 
Leaves me puzzled as to what such a loop might be, and how it might have a 
positive value.
> 
>>    In Condorcet the sum of all the ballots in an election can be a  
>>combination of some voters voting each preference in a way to,  
>>collectively, create a cycle - a problem to solve but not a feature  
>>to brag about.
>>
> 
> Agreed. The tied at top/bottom rules are tricks that may relieve this  
> a bit. (Their other characteristics would need to be discussed more  
> to tell if they are good or bad in general.)
> 
> 
>>You also use the word "loops" in a manner I do not understand.
>>
> 
> I don't know how but I think I referred to artificial intentionally  
> generated circular preferences every time.
> 
> Juho Laatu
-- 
  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.