[EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

[Dave Ketchum]

How did we get here?  What I see called Condorcet is not really that.

On Feb 6, 2012, at 10:02 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
...
>
> Say people vote rated ballots with 6 levels, and after the election  
> you see a histogram of candidate X and Y that looks like this:
>
> (better)
> 6:Y X
> 5:  Y  X
> 4:     YX
> 3:     XY
> 2:  X  Y
> 1:X Y
> (worse)
> N:123456789
>
> That is, 3 people rated X as 6 and only one person rated them as 1,  
> and vice versa for Y.
>
> X wins, right?
>
> If it's Condorcet, not necessarily. This is consistent with a 14:12  
> victory for Y over X.

I count 15 vs 6, being that all you can say in Condorcet is X>Y, X=Y,  
and X<Y.  There being no cycles in this election, I would not expect  
any variation among Condorcet methods.  Perhaps Jameson was thinking  
of something other than Condorcet - consistent with saying "rated"  
rather than "ranked"?
>
> If you present the pairwise total, it's "obvious" to people that Y  
> should win. If you present the histogram, it's at least as "obvious"  
> to people that X should win. If what people find obvious isn't even  
> consistent (which even just pairwise isn't, of course; that's why  
> there is more than one Condorcet system), then you can't elevate  
> "obvious" to an unbreakable principle.
...

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120206/9f5a312d/attachment-0004.htm>