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

[Kevin Venzke]

Hi Abd,

--- En date de : Lun 17.5.10, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd at lomaxdesign.com> a écrit :
> At 03:13 PM 5/17/2010, Kevin Venzke
> wrote:
> > Hi Warren,
> > 
> > --- En date de : Lun 17.5.10, Warren Smith <warren.wds at gmail.com>
> a écrit :
> > > I just started looking in the library
> > > to answer the historical
> > > question "what did Condorcet himself (and other
> authors
> > > about
> > > Condorcetness) have in mind?"
> > >
> > > Albert Wiele: "Democracy," St Martins Press NY
> 1999
> > > on p133 defines "A condorcet-winner is that
> alternative
> > > that could
> > > defeat every other alternative in a pair-wise
> contest."
> > > Note: this can be interpreted as saying "range
> voting is a
> > > condorcet
> > > system" or "not."
> > >
> > > It is ambiguous.
> > 
> > It's only ambiguous if he didn't define "pair-wise
> contest." Did he?
> > 
> > Personally I know what I mean when I say "pairwise
> contest" and it
> > doesn't concern me that if I spoke less precisely then
> something else
> > could be understood.
> 
> Here is the issue. Is the "pairwise contest" some *other
> election*, where the two candidates face off against each
> other? But this is a completely different election! It's a
> theoretical construct, not an actual procedure to follow
> with ballots.

Are you asking me or are you arguing that multiple definitions are
possible? I don't dispute the latter.

If you're asking me, the answer is that "pairwise contest" has nothing
to do with two elections, and only applies to rankings or things that
can be interpreted as rankings. (That's a definition, not an attempt to
justify the concept.)

You go on to argue that "pairwise contest" may not be a very relevant
idea. That's a reasonable argument. I don't want to change my definitions
as I change my opinions though. If necessary I'd rather coin new terms.

Kevin Venzke