[Election-Methods] RE : Re: Is the Condorcet winner always the best?

[Kevin Venzke]

Jonathan,

--- Jonathan Lundell <jlundell at pobox.com> a écrit :
> ...should choose B as a good compromise, with the A voters saying A is  
> good, B OK, C very bad. But Diego's profile suggests to me that the A  
> voters are saying something like A is good, B is bad, C is very bad.  
> Not that they can express it in a normal linear ballot, just that  
> we're being told a little more about their opinions.

In my opinion, to the extent that the effect of a ">>bad>verybad" vote is
disregarded, the point of letting voters indicate such preferences is
undermined anyway.

> In my example, the effect of a later-no-harm voting rule is evident.  
> In Diego's, a rule (such as STV) that elects A doesn't seem  
> unreasonable to me.
> 
> The problem is that with an ordinary linear ballot (no '>>'), we can't  
> distinguish between the cases. Not that I'm arguing that we should  
> employ '>>'; offhand, that strikes me as a complication to be avoided.

In one sense I don't agree. If >> is allowed then apparently it's safe to
vote ">>bad>verybad." If >> isn't allowed then voters will probably be more
cautious, since the method could very well take them as serious if they say
that bad is better than verybad.

I tend to think that if B doesn't win in Diego's scenario, the method is
second-guessing the voters. It either disbelieves the C voters' preference
for B over A, or finds that there's something more important than majority
rule.

Kevin Venzke


      _____________________________________________________________________________ 
Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail http://mail.yahoo.fr