[EM] the 'who' and the 'what' - trying again

[Dave Ketchum]

Michael is into cascade voting.  I joined this thread because Condorcet got 
mentioned, and will stay with that detail

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 13:56:36 -0400 Michael Allan wrote:
> Dave Ketchum wrote:
> 
>>I see the Condorcet phantom as going thru the same motions as a real 
>>primary or general election, but letting the real elections do the 
>>nominating and pay no official attention to results of the phantom.
> 
> 
> I see a phantom that will nevertheless have real effects (ghost in the
> machine).  You see a test bed or proving grounds for an election
> method (machine in the ghost).  Same ghost, different machines.
> 
> (But I've interrupted your discussions.)
> 
> 
>>That the phantom votes would be shiftable because current counts should be 
>>displayed during the voting/polling period does not make consensus exciting 
>>to me.
>>
>>I mentioned cycles because their resolution formulas are a hot topic and a 
>>variety of examples could help thinking.
> 
> 
> Maybe decision rings could help.  The resolution is slow (depends on
> vote shifting), but maybe someone can improve that.  (I needed a slow
> and thoughtful process to solve a real world problem, external to the
> counting mechanism.)  Just to illustrate, here's a "Condorcet
> resolution" by a decision ring:
> 
>   0.  A clear Condorcet winner (null case).
> 
>   http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/_/decision-0-stable.png
> 
> No need for a resolution with that result.  All 58 voters are in
> agreement.
> 
>   1.  A Condorcet cycle.
> 
>   http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/_/decision-1-vacuum.png
> 
> Call that a "Condorcet cycle" because it's (as you say) a "near tie".
> Say the tie includes all those receiving 5+ votes apiece (but ignore
> the fiver on the bottom, pretend she's a four).

Clarification:
      39A>38B and 38A>37C and ?B ? ?C   makes A the CW for winning over 
each other candidate., for which B vs C matters not.
       5A>4B and 5B>4C and 5C>3A  is a cycle with no CW (I emphasize 'near 
tie' because that is descriptive and I believe encourages useful thinking).
> 
> Two problems with above i) it's not apparent to the voters that
> there's a cycle (tie), and ii) if we make it clear and turn up the
> decision heat ("hurry up, we're picking the winner now") they may
> behave chaotically.  They may pile up on the winner or something, so
> the end result is overly sensitive to initial vote shifts.

Cycles happen, and perhaps should be reported, but are NOT a reason for he 
system to do anything special beyond normal analysis and reporting.

Of course reporting should e based on total voting, thus updated as soon as 
practical after any vote.  Big point is that cycles happen and nothing gets 
done to encourage or discourage their existence.
> 
>   2.  A decision ring.
> 
Cascade discussion deleted.

> (All of this applies only to cascade voting.  There are other methods,
> and I'm afraid I interrupted your discussion of them.  Please
> resume...)
-- 
  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.