[Election-Methods] RE : Re: rcv ala tournament

rob brown rob at karmatics.com
Sun Dec 30 15:23:23 PST 2007

On Dec 30, 2007 7:05 AM, Kevin Venzke <stepjak at yahoo.fr> wrote:

> > > > that is a bad recommendation, since it implies condorcet voting (the
> > > > only method where every voter has the same strength), which is
> > nowhere
> > > > near as utilitarian as range voting.
> > >
> > > Debatable.
> >
> > oh yeah?  where's your evidence that it's debatable?
> You should remember from past discussions why the claim that "Condorcet
> voting ... is nowhere near as utilitarian as range voting" was criticized.
> Ask Warren.

I've presented evidence over and over, based mostly on the fact that Clay
refuses to define utility as he intends it.  So please, Clay, please define

Does it only include satisfaction with the elected candidates themselves?

Simply a sum of the utilities people assign the candidates that end up
winning?  Do people with a direct vested interest in a candidate winning
(such as the candidates themselves, or their campaign manager) get to have
much higher utility values because it affects them more?  Is this on a
linear or logarithmic scale?

More importantly, does it ignore long-term intangibles, such as whether
people feel the election was fair, or whether everyone's vote was counted?
Or are these simply ignored?

Please clarify your definition.  You have weaseled out of this over and
over, I'd really like to know.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20071230/237c0a48/attachment-0003.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list