[EM] Why Not Condorcet?

[Kevin Venzke]

Hi Dave,

--- En date de : Sam 15.5.10, Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com> a écrit :
> De: Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com>
> Objet: Re: [EM] Why Not Condorcet?
> À: "Kevin Venzke" <stepjak at yahoo.fr>
> Cc: election-methods at electorama.com
> Date: Samedi 15 mai 2010, 17h34
> On May 14, 2010, at 7:08 PM, Kevin
> Venzke wrote:
> > Dave, by the way,
> > --- En date de : Ven 14.5.10, Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com>
> a écrit :
> >> We can dream of value in details as we sit here
> and
> >> debate.  Real-life voters need a way to
> express their
> >> most serious thoughts with reasonable effort:
> >>      To vote for more than
> Plurality's
> >> one - which even Approval offers.
> >>      To vary their approval
> according
> >> to their amount of liking - Condorcet and Score
> offer this.
> >>      To ask for only reasonable
> effort
> >> from the voters - see Condorcet.
> >>      Score demands more.  A
> voter
> >> thinking of A>B>C>D has no trouble
> offering min and
> >> max ratings to A and D.   With
> Score the
> >> voter is expected to diligently assign the
> available rating
> >> space among A>B, B>C, and C>D.
> > 
> > I notice that all of your arguments have to do with
> the expressiveness
> > and simplicity of the ballot (except when you
> criticize IRV).
> > 
> > Some objections to Condorcet could be:
> > 1. It is not expressive enough (compared to ratings)
>
> Truly less expressive in some ways than ratings.
>      This is balanced by not demanding
> ratings details.
>      And more expressive by measuring
> differences between each pair of candidates.

That is probably the argument I would make more often. Ratings has
no interest in pairwise contests, which makes its behavior (and ideal
voter behavior) very different from Condorcet methods'.

> > 2. Offensive strategy potential (absent in IRV,
> ratings, Bucklin)
>      How is IRV different?

In IRV your lower preferences are not regarded until all higher 
preferences are eliminated. This means it is completely impossible to
make your favorite candidate win by lying about your lower preferences.

Perhaps more importantly: It's also impossible to try to do this and
fail so badly that you elect a candidate no one likes.

> > 3. Lacking guarantees (e.g. FBC or LNHarm)
>      Isn't this standard among methods
> - each with different details?

Yes, but different people will value different guarantees.

> > 4. Too complicated to explain, or propose (a
> conceptual hurdle with
> > Condorcet is that we leave the actual ballots for the
> pairwise matrix
> > right away, making it hard to understand how voting
> different ways
> > could change things)
>      Some Condorcet methods of handling
> cycles are truly complex - I recommend choosing a method for
> which cycle explaining is doable.
>      Counting into the matrix should
> class as understandable.

It's possible. I do think it would be helpful if Condorcet could be
defined in terms of how a single ballot "goes through the process." In
essence Condorcet sucks all the data out of the ballots like a vacuum and
finds the best winner without thinking about which ballot said what. This
makes for a pretty good method but it's also what means Condorcet provides
relatively few concrete guarantees to the individual voter.

> > 5. Not thought to be politically acceptable (third
> place in FPs can win)
> You seem to be complaining about newness - a problem for
> any new thought until/unless accepted.

I'm not complaining at all, I'm suggesting reasons of others. The problem
could very well just be newness, but IRV for instance has this problem a
little less than Condorcet.

Kevin Venzke