[EM] Why Condorcet

[Dave Ketchum]

On Jul 6, 2010, at 11:31 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2010, at 9:31 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
>> Ballots:  Must support write-ins and, perhaps, 3 ranks (do not need  
>> to rank rejects and can do equal ranking).
>
> i think that the number of ranking levels should be as large as the  
> number of candidates (and there should be ballot access laws that  
> make it difficult enough to get on the ballot that no more than  
> maybe 5 candidates normally get on).

Making getting on the ballot unreasonably difficult affects who gets  
to run, unreasonably - lets don't.

No real need for a ranking level for every candidate.  Especially when  
there are many candidates voters will happily use some equal ranks and  
will not bother to rank those they see as not worth ranking.
>
> i think Write-In can just be considered another candidate.

Agreed each should be, and my way of counting provides for this.   
Counters can hear before election day of likely need.
      Near here, a few years ago, someone's error resulted in no  
petitions being submitted on time.  Recovery was to do entire election  
with write-ins.

>  the only issue is what to do if Write-In wins, then there must be  
> some assumption first to determine who the likely write-in candidate  
> is, hand separate those ballots from the others with a write-in (and  
> call them two different candidates, Write-In1 and Write-In2).  and  
> then retabulate as a Condorcet election and see if Write-In1 still  
> wins.
>
>>
>> Voting:  Voter can rank one or more candidates, much as would be  
>> done in various methods:
>>   Bullet voting, ala Plurality - simply rank one.  This is a  
>> suitable vote for many voters in many races.
>>   Approval - just give them the same rank.
>>   Condorcet - Equal ranking permitted.  Counters care only which of  
>> any pair of candidates ranks higher, not how voter decides on  
>> ranking.
>>   Rank below unranked candidates?  Can't, but can rank all others  
>> above those most hated.
>
> only if you have enough ranking levels.
>
>>   Rank, but number not clear - rules could have counters treat such  
>> as a rank below the lowest real rank.
>>   Write-ins permitted (if few write-ins expected, counters may lump  
>> all such as if a single candidate - if assumption correct the count  
>> verifies it; if incorrect, must recount - if many expected for one  
>> person, that name could be added in for counting).
>>
>> Counting:  Have an N array with one entry per candidate plus an N*N  
>> matrix with one row and column per candidate.
> ...
>> Reporting results:  Besides the winner, contents of the final N*N  
>> matrix can be useful.  N*N matrices for districts such as a town or  
>> county can also be done and published.
>
>
> i still think that rectangular N*N matrix is sorta useless.  it's  
> hard to read.  each pair should be grouped together for visual  
> inspection.

Debatable.
>
>
> r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com