[EM] Kristofer: Approval vs Condorcet, 4/28/12

Dave Ketchum davek at clarityconnect.com
Sun Apr 29 07:41:46 PDT 2012

As the subject indicates, the topic is Approval vs Condorcet.

To Mike O:  How did we get here?

To RBJ:  Thanks for clarifications.

On Apr 29, 2012, at 12:47 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>> On Apr 28, 2012, at 5:04 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>> ....
>>> For one thing, Condorcet discourages honesty,
> this is just stupid.
>>>  because, even if you
>>> top-rank Compromise, top-ranking Favorite too can cause Compromise  
>>> to
>>> lose to Worse.
> as long as Compromise is ranked above Worse, it doesn't matter what  
> you do to Favorite, you are not affecting your contribution to  
> Compromise's position with respect to Worse's position (your vote  
> increases Compomise's lead over Worse or decreases Worse's lead over  
> Compromise).
>>>  ....when ranking Compromise _alone_ in 1st place would
>>> have defeated Worse. To do your best to defeat Worse, you have to  
>>> vote
>>> Favorite below Compromise.
> baloney.  unless you're assuming some kind of pathological cycle is  
> to happen.  and i don't accept that cycles are anywhere close to  
> common.
>>>  You have to say with your vote that
>>> Condorcet is better than Favorite.
> ???
> you mean "Compromise is better than Favorite."?
> if that is what you meant to say, then i say you are mistaken.
>>>  Consider that before you criticize
>>> Approval for not letting you vote Favorite over a needed compromise.
>> What is going on here?
>> I properly have to rank Favorite above Compromise.  Exactly how can  
>> this
>> fail?
> i am still unimpressed with Mike O's analysis if this is what it  
> is.  maybe i should un-plonk him, but i dunno why.
> -- 
> r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

Dave Ketchum

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list