[EM] Why Not Condorcet?

[Dave Ketchum]

On May 13, 2010, at 10:25 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> On May 13, 2010, at 10:08 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
>> I read of arranging ballot data in a triangle, rather than in a  
>> matrix as usually described.  A minor detail, but what would be  
>> easiest for ballot counters is most important while they count,  
>> though rearranging for later processing would be possible.
>
> in all cases, i am assuming that a computer is tabulating the  
> ballots.  to count Condorcet by hand is difficult, because (if  
> number of candidates is N) you would have to update up to N*(N-1)/2  
> numbers out of N*(N-1) for each ballot handled, rather than 1 of N  
> numbers as is done for FPTP (the latter lets you sort to piles for  
> quick double checking).

That reads as if you were trying for a prize for large numbers.

Suppose someone bullet votes; N-1 is the most pairs you can find  
reason for updating - 3(N-1) if the voter ranked three.

Read my post where I describe less labor for counting:
      Q elements in an N array if the voter ranks Q candidates.
      P elements in N*N if the Q elements were composed of P pairs (0  
for a bullet vote; 6 for Q=4).
>
> the reason i prefer that triangle (which is just like the NxN matrix  
> with half of the elements folded over the main diagonal and also  
> sorted in order of the Condorcet ranking (assuming no cycles, if  
> there are cycles, even one not including the CW, the triangle won't  
> look so pretty) is because it displays the result in such a way that  
> you can immediately infer the who-beats-who results from it.  even  
> though i haven't seen it anywhere else before, i make no claim to  
> novelty.  i really just can't understand why anyone would use the  
> NxN square matrix.  it's really hard to glance at it and see what  
> numbers to pair together.
>
> --
>
> r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com