[EM] Question to the Condorcetists

[Michael Ossipoff]

Robert:

I already said that the negligibly tiny possibility of one a particular
voter’s voted-preference being negatively responded-to doesn’t even begin
to compare in importance—from that voter’s point of view—to the complete
strategy-freedom of RP(wv).

But we were speaking of how Condorcet could be used in Germany, in
compliance with Germany’s Constitution.

Checking for, detecting & discarding a Participation-violating outcome, &
then counting the ballots by Implicit-Approval, which never responds
negatively, was the suggestion being discussed.



On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 22:06 robert bristow-johnson <
rbj at audioimagination.com> wrote:

>
>
>

> >
> > The entire Participation-check only takes half as long as the original
> exhaustive pairwise-count used by Condorcet.
> >
>
> I have to admit that I am not following this closely, but in my
> superficial understanding of the argument, we're discussing the complexity
> of the tabulation as if it were done centrally, by a single computer,
> similarly to what we **have** to do with Hare RCV.


Then your superficial understanding of the argument is incorrect.

I said nothing about where the individual pairwise votes are counted.

I said that a Participation-violation-check requires the counting of only
half as many individual pairwise votes, & only takes half as long, compared
to the election’s original exhaustive pairwise-count.

…the veracity of which is unaffected by where the counting is done.
 …unless you want to count one centrally, & the other at precincts.

:-)



I gave numbers for how many individual pairwise votes need to be counted,
in the original exhaustive pairwise count, & in the complete thorough
Participation-violation check, with 300 million voters & 20 candidates.

…which is unaffected by where the counting is done

>
>
>



>
> FPTP, Approval, Score all require fewer tallies than does Condorcet RCV.
> STAR is also N².  But Hare RCV is floor((e-1)N!)-1 which is much worse,
> essentially proscribing local precinct tabulation and yet there are
> statewide RCV elections (that take two weeks to report the election
> outcome).
>

Though of course the number of votes per votes needing to be counted, for a
given number of candidates, varies in Approval, & varies in Hare, it seemed
to me, when I looked at it, that it’s roughly about the same for the 2
methods.

That first impression of mine could have been mistaken.

But, if so, it’s one  of the reasons why Hare, with a remarkably easy
handcount for a rank-method, would be a good choice for an informal vote on
a nonpolitical matter like a pizza topping or movie choice.

>
> I just don't see what the problem is other than some theoretical academic
> navel gazing.


…if a Constitutional-prohibition is some theoretical academic naval gazing.

>
>
For someone who doesn’t see what the problem is, you seem bent on making
 one.



> --
>
> r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
> .
> .
> .
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240302/0a559f48/attachment.htm>