[EM] Three rounds

[Juho Laatu]

Yes, IRV is a good example. Most Condorcet methods do the comparisons/evaluation just once (when all the candidates are in the same situation).

Juho




--- On Tue, 11/11/08, Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com> wrote:

> From: Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com>
> Subject: Re: [EM] Three rounds
> To: juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk
> Cc: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> Date: Tuesday, 11 November, 2008, 2:47 AM

> If I understand you 'sequential elimination' is IRV
> and not Condorcet.
> 
> DWK
> 
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:01:36 +0000 (GMT) Juho Laatu wrote:
> > The sequential elimination processes tends to
> introduce additional problems. Most Condorcet methods
> don't have this problem.
> > 
> > Condorcet may have some other problems that the
> sequential elimination based approach may avoid, but
> especially in large public elections with independent voter
> decision making and without too accurate knowledge about the
> behaviour of other voters the performance of Condorcet
> methods is very good.
> > 
> > (Just checking how one could eliminate some of the
> problems of sequential elimination (e.g. by using approval
> and avoid losing the "eliminated" candidates).)
> > 
> > Juho
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 10/11/08, Dave Ketchum
> <davek at clarityconnect.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>From: Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com>
> >>Subject: Re: [EM] Three rounds
> >>To: juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk
> >>Cc: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> >>Date: Monday, 10 November, 2008, 8:10 PM
> >>How do your thoughts compare with Condorcet as a
> competitor?
> >> It:
> >>     Normally is defined as not doing runoffs.
> >>     Has no problem with voters offering whatever
> quantity
> >>of ranks they choose, including doing bullet
> voting.
> >>
> >>DWK
> >>
> >>On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:05:16 +0000 (GMT) Juho Laatu
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>FYI. Finland used to have three rounds in the
> >>
> >>presidential elections. Since 1994 a typical direct
> two
> >>round method has been used. Before that (in most
> elections)
> >>the voters first elected 300 (or 301) electors who
> then
> >>voted in three rounds (two candidates at the last
> round).
> >>
> >>>Reasons behind moving to the direct two round
> system
> >>
> >>included assumed general popularity of a direct
> election,
> >>some problems with heavy trading and planning of
> votes by
> >>the electors, possibility of black horses and other
> voting
> >>patterns that are not based on the citizens'
> votes.
> >>Maybe three rounds / three election days in a
> direct
> >>election would have been too expensive and too
> tiring.
> >>
> >>>- - - - -
> >>>
> >>>One somewhat related method:
> >>>
> >>>I sometimes played with the idea that in IRV
> one would
> >>
> >>not totally eliminate the least popular (first
> place)
> >>candidates but would use some softer means and
> would allow
> >>the "eliminated" candidates to win later
> if they
> >>turn out to be the favourites of many voters (after
> their
> >>first preference candidates have lost all chances
> to win).
> >>
> >>>One could e.g. force supporters of the
> >>
> >>"eliminated" candidates to approve more
> than one
> >>candidate (at least one of the
> "remaining"
> >>candidates) (instead of just bullet voting their
> second
> >>preference). On possible way to terminate the
> algorithm
> >>would be to stop when someone has reached >50%
> approval
> >>level.
> >>
> >>>Also in "non-instant" runoffs one
> could e.g.
> >>
> >>force the voters to approve at least one on the
> >>"remaining" candidates. (One could
> eliminate more
> >>than one candidate at different rounds.)
> >>
> >>>Juho
> -- 
>   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.