[EM] [CES #4431] Looking at Condorcet

Jameson Quinn jameson.quinn at gmail.com
Thu Feb 2 04:45:30 PST 2012

For combined systems, I definitely prefer Abd's suggestion: vote a Range
ballot, count it by various rules, and if the winner by the different rules
does not agree, hold a runoff. In most cases, it would agree; and in the
rest, a runoff would be a worthwhile second look at the best candidates,
not a timewasting requirement to repeat a determination already given.


2012/2/2 Raph Frank <raphfrk at gmail.com>

> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:22 AM, Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com>
> wrote:
> > Voter can vote as in:
> > .     FPTP, ranking the single candidate liked best, and treating all
> others
> > as equally liked less or disliked.
> > .     Approval, ranking those equally liked best, and treating all
> others as
> > equally liked less or disliked.
> > .     IRV, giving each voted for a different rank, with higher ranks for
> > those liked best, and realizing that IRV vote counters would read only as
> > many of the higher rankings as needed to make their decisions.
> > .     Condorcet, ranking the one or more liked, using higher ranks for
> those
> > liked best, and ranking equally when more than one are liked equally.
> You can combine all of those methods (though not IRV) into a
> super-ballot.  I think this was suggested on this list at some point.
> Basically, you give each candidate a rating, but fractional rankings
> are allowed.
> You then construct the condorcet matrix.  If a voter ranks A as 1 and
> B as 1.5, then that counts as half a vote for A over B.
> However, if the voter votes A as 1 and B as 5, then that only counts
> as 1 vote for A over B, since each voter gets a maximum of 1 vote.
> Ranked candidates are considered preferred by a full vote over unranked.
> This allows the voters to decide which method to use.
> Condorcet
> - just rank the candidates in order of your choice, equals allowed
> Approval
> - rank approved candidates as 1
> Range/Scorevoting
> - rank all candidates from 0 to 1 (0 = favorite)
> Each voter could decide, without one group having much more power than
> others.
> Abstains aren't handled that well.  Scorevoting assumes that they
> should have no effect.
> In theory, the rule could be that if a candidate is not ranked, then
> no preference ordering is assumed.  The ballot would have a zero for
> all comparisons relative to that candidate.
> However, that is a lot of hassle, maybe there could be a box to
> indicate how you want unranked candidates handled.  Do you want them
> equal lowest rank, or abstain.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120202/9bebf461/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list