[EM] Published references for CW/ Range winner relation?

Jameson Quinn jameson.quinn at gmail.com
Wed Jan 25 03:36:48 PST 2012

2012/1/24 robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com>

> On 1/24/12 7:01 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>> Does anyone have any references of academic papers that talk about the
>> relationship between the honest CW and the honest Range winner? Ie, when
>> are they necessarily the same or not?
> ya know, i still wonder why these guys continue to say that Range/Score
> does a better job of electing the CW than does a condorcet-compliant
> method.  the information collected from voters is not the same.  you could
> be ranking
>    Ghandi > MotherTeresa > Stalin > Satan
> and it would make no more difference than if it was 4 candidates, all you
> really liked nearly equally well.  but for Score it makes a big difference
> in how you score it.
> how are these apples and oranges compared?  what assumptions are made in
> translating ranked-ballot data to score-ballot data?
> i don't see how you can talk about the relationship from Condorcet to
> Score without making some assumptions.  though there *is* a simple and
> direct inverse relationship.
> I don't want to get into the whole "more Condorcet-efficient than
Condorcet" can of worms; I think it's interesting, but it would be a
distraction for the paper I'm writing. All I want is a simple result that
indicates that the Range and Condorcet winners tend to be the same in at
least some circumstances.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120125/808db980/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list