[EM] An interesting real election

[Aaron Armitage]

Sorry for the triple posting. I think it came from a glitch in refreshing
the page; I got a message about resending data.

--- On Mon, 1/31/11, Aaron Armitage <eutychus_slept at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Aaron Armitage <eutychus_slept at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [EM] An interesting real election
> To: election-methods at electorama.com, "Kevin Venzke" <stepjak at yahoo.fr>
> Date: Monday, January 31, 2011, 3:56 PM
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 1/31/11, Kevin Venzke <stepjak at yahoo.fr>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Kevin Venzke <stepjak at yahoo.fr>
> > Subject: Re: [EM] An interesting real election
> > To: election-methods at electorama.com
> > Date: Monday, January 31, 2011, 12:04 AM
> > Hi Aaron,
> > 
> > --- En date de : Dim 30.1.11, Aaron Armitage <eutychus_slept at yahoo.com>
> > a écrit :
> > >1 has a path to 6 at least as strong as 6's path
> to 1,
> > namely 1>3>6, at 
> > >15-11 and 14-11. It
> > >seems a little odd, to me at least, that 6's path
> to 1
> > should benefit 2 
> > >but not 6 itself.
> > 
> > When you say "benefit" do you mean "elect" or
> something
> > more broad? It
> > seems to me election is the only meaningful benefit
> but of
> > course only
> > one candidate can receive it.
> > 
> 
> In this context I mean benefit in the pairwise comparison.
> So in this
> case, using Schulze, 2 receives a pairwise benefit against
> 1 from the
> direct 6 vs. 1 comparison, but 6 itself (himself,
> herself...) does not.
> Actually winning office is the main reason why a candidate
> would care
> about his pairwise comparisons, but not the only one --
> doing well gives
> him a stronger platform for future elections, makes him
> more attractive to
> donors, makes him more likely to be taken seriously, and so
> on.
> 
> > >Starting from the top seems the only way of
> ensuring
> > that the path that 
> > >orders the two
> > >candidates relative to each other is the one
> which
> > actually contributes 
> > >to the final outcome.
> > 
> > I don't understand this. Are you saying the Schulze
> outcome
> > in this
> > election is an example where these two things
> differed?
> > 
> 
> Well, yes. 6>1 is part of 2's successful path to 1, even
> though 1 is
> placed over 6 by the 1>3>6 path.
> 
> > It's true that 1's path to 6 is better than the
> reverse,
> > but the only
> > method that will never elect the loser of such a
> comparison
> > is Schulze.
> > 
> > Kevin
> > 
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something. I ranked pairs, aren't the
> strongest paths
> locked in before the weaker ones are considered? That is,
> the weakest link
> of the weaker path is only considered after all the links
> of the better
> path are locked in.
> 
> > 
> >       
> > ----
> > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
> > 
> 
> 
>       
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>