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

Juho juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk
Sun Dec 30 16:47:06 PST 2007

Kevin Venzke replied to Rob Brown:

> You say you don't see much point in discussing various Condorcet  
> methods.
> The ones that I don't like have the quality that sometimes when the
> quantity of voters who rank candidate A, and don't rank candidate B  
> at all,
> is larger than the quantity of voters who rank B at all, B can  
> still win.
> Here is a simple example:
> 7 B>C
> 5 C
> 8 A
> What do you think? Is there good evidence and logic available for a  
> method
> to decide that B is the best candidate to win?

Kevin, you maybe already know/guess my answer. B is only 2 votes  
short of being a Condorcet winner. C would need 3 and A 5 votes.

In your comments I note that you may think that listing a candidate  
(higher than default bottom) has a special meaning. If there is  
something like an implicit approval cutoff after the listed  
candidates (=> 7 B>C>>A, 5 C>>A=B, 8 A>>B=C) then that should be  
explicitly mentioned. The used method could in this case count both  
the pairwise preferences and the approvals (A and C would be more  
approved than B), and the result could be something different than  
with pure ranking based ballots.

Although I have some opinions on Condorcet completion I agree with  
Rob that too much energy is spent on the Condorcet completion  
debates. All methods that are Condorcet compliant are already quite  
good methods.


All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine 

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list