[EM] IRV vs Condorcet vs Range/Score

[Aaron Armitage]

I think his point is that he prefers any and all Condorcet methods over
IRV, and probably over any non-Condorcet method. I happen to agree.


--- On Sat, 10/11/08, Chris Benham <cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> From: Chris Benham <cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au>
> Subject: [EM] IRV vs Condorcet vs Range/Score
> To: "EM" <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>, "damon rasheed" <damon at pokernews.com>
> Cc: "Dave Ketchum" <davek at clarityconnect.com>
> Date: Saturday, October 11, 2008, 5:14 AM
> Dave Ketchum wrote:
> 
> Let's see:
> 
> A Condorcet method finds the candidate which would beat
> each other 
> candidate in a run-off election, assuming such a candidate
> exists.  Thus 
> such a method meets the Condorcet criterion.
> 
> Having copied such from Wikipedia, don't seem like I
> grabbed much.
> 
> Having no such candidate, we have a cycle of three or more
> leaders in a 
> near tie and debate how to pick from them.
> 
> Perhaps Chris is into this debate, which I agree is
> important but am trying 
> to keep out of this thread, whose business is IRV vs
> non-IRV.
> 
> Perhaps there are other exceptions.
> 
> DWK
> 
> Dave,
> "Condorcet" isn't decisive enough to qualify
> as "a method". IRV is a method.
> All I ask is that you specify some particular
> "Condorcet method" (i.e. a method
> that meets the Condorcet criterion) that you are sure you
> prefer over IRV, so
> that we can compare one method with another (and not one
> method with one
> criterion).
> 
> 49: A
> 24: B
> 27: C>B
> 
> A and C have only first-preference votes, A 49 and C 27. 
> Is that a "near tie"??
> 
> Chris  Benham
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:26:55 -0400 Terry Bouricius wrote:
> >Dave,
> >
> >You are using the term "Condorcet" in a way
> that is increasingly common, 
> >but confusing to election method theorists, to mean a
> ranked voting method 
> >that is easiest to explain by imagining a series of
> one-on-one comparisons 
> >using a ranked ballot. What Chris B. was getting at is
> that Condorcet is a 
> >CRITERION (in fact there is also a Condorcet-loser
> criterion, which I 
> >think is more useful), which is used in evaluating
> voting methods, rather 
> >than an actual voting method itself. There are probably
> a dozen different 
> >voting methods that are Condorcet compliant, and many
> others that aren't 
> >(complying with other criteria that some believe are
> more crucial). The 
> >issue separating the various Condorcet methods is how
> you find a winner 
> >when there is no Condorcet winner.
> >
> >Terry Bouricius
> 
> 
> 
>       Make the switch to the world's best email.
> Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see
> http://electorama.com/em for list info