[EM] IFNOP Method (was Re: Question about Condorcet methods)

[Dave Ketchum]

Given:
    35 A>C
    33 B>C
    32 C

I see:
      IRV will discard C, letting A win.
      Condorcet will see 65 C winning over 35 A

I LIKE Condorcet.  What does this mean below?

DWK

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:55:53 -0400 raphfrk at netscape.net wrote:
> I assume you mean the "later no harm" property?
> 
> In effect, this means that you cannot look at a later choice on a ballot 
> until you are sure one of the following 3 conditions is true
> 
> a) the candidate at the current choice is already elected
> b) the candidate at the current choice cannot be elected
> c) the later choices can in no way affect the election of the current choice
> 
> c) folds in on a) and b) as if later choices cannot affect 
> election/elimination of the current candidate then you already know if 
> the candidate is elected or eliminated.
> 
> In effect, the process has to be:
> 
> 1) Look at all first choices
> 2) elect and/or eliminate some candidates based on current choice total
> 3) reweight ballots and recompute totals using the highest candidate on 
> each ballot still undecided
> 4) goto 2) unless all seats filled
> 
> Basically, all you will have is a list of candidates and a total for 
> each candidate.  You don't know voter rankings as you are not allowed to 
> look at them.  How can you determine who is elected or eliminated ?  IRV 
> seems the only reasonable way of doing it.  The only possible other 
> piece of info is the rankings of eliminated and elected candidates, but 
> I don't see how useful they would be.
> 
> Maybe asset voting could be used.  After the round, each candidate can 
> give some/all his votes to other candidates.  Any candidate above the 
> quota gets elected, and also candidates can resign.  Each ballot is then 
> rescaled based on what percentage was "spent" by its current holder.  
> However, if asset voting is used, then there is no point in doing IRV as 
> well.  I guess it could be used as a deadlock breaker or something.
> 
> Raphfrk
> --------------------
> Interesting site
> "what if anyone could modify the laws"
> 
> www.wikocracy.com
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk
> To: davek at clarityconnect.com
> Cc: mrouse1 at mrouse.com; election-methods at electorama.com
> Sent: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 9:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [EM] IFNOP Method (was Re: Question about Condorcet methods)
> 
> Maybe there is some potential in doing the IRV style "never  
> considering all the given opinions" in some better way. I don't have  
> any opinion yet on if this is that case but maybe something can be  
> found.
> 
> 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.