[EM] Condorcet and other authors on Condorcet (and how does range voting fit in?)

[Kevin Venzke]

Hi Robert,

--- En date de : Lun 17.5.10, robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com> a écrit :
> i am curious how Range can be directly compared to
> Condorcet, IRV, or anything that uses a Ranked Ballot. 
> the ballots are different.  assumptions need to be made
> in order to compare them.

The assumptions needed are not too bad. If something is rated strictly
better than something else, you assume it would also be ranked that way.
Criteria for rank methods are only going to refer to ranking concepts.
For example if they say "if X is ranked in such a way in relation to Y
then X must win" then it doesn't matter what bizarre concepts may exist
with the ballot you are trying to use: If there is a way to see rankings
in the ballot format, then when X is "ranked" in the way stated by
the criterion, X has to win, period, or the criterion is failed.

What Warren seems to want to point out is that if you delete all but
two candidates on a Range ballot and don't renormalize or anything,
the same one of the two candidates will beat the other, satisfying a
concept of a pairwise contest.

Another thing you could do is argue that the term "Americans" is unclear
and could actually include Canadians, or even Argentines. It could be
a very good argument. But it wouldn't prove that the Canadian capital
is Washington, etc. I really don't know what it would prove.

Kevin Venzke