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

[Michael Allan]

Dave Ketchum wrote:
> I do not understand 'no resolution':
>
> By time N1 there have been 10 votes in the poll - to analyze as a complete 
> Condorcet election.
>
> By time N2 there have been 2 more, for a total of 12 to analyze as if a 
> complete election.
>
> Any such election may produce a CW.
>
> Those that do not produce a CW result in a cycle...

Meaning indecision?  Maybe it's best to leave it at that.  To
"resolve" it and report it as a decision is to report a fabrication.
(I was taking your preference for a hands-off resolution to the
extreme.  When faced with cycles, meaning indecisions, "nothing gets
done to encourage or discourage their existence."  Let the indecision
be.  "Let be be finale of seem...  Let the lamp affix its beam.")

Or meaning the Condorcet count is unable to "see" the decision?  Then:

> ... I suggest at least the 
> ability to implement multiple cycle resolution formulas, to support 
> comparison of the resolutions provided by various formulas.

And maybe combine their resolving power?  Where a telescope is unable
to resolve a faint star, an array of telescopes can do better.

> Here I see Votorola offering a useful, though incomplete, service.  What I 
> see desirable for Condorcet is an external site using that service.

I guess it depends on where you're aiming.  You can test resolution
mechanisms under simulation in vitro.  Why test them in vivo?

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/