<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto"><BR class=yui-cursor></SPAN></div>
<div><BR></div>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px" class=hr readonly="true" contenteditable="false"></DIV></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><B style="RIGHT: auto"><SPAN style="RIGHT: auto; FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Richard Fobes <ElectionMethods@VoteFair.org><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> election-methods@electorama.com<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Thursday, 29 September 2011, 8:43<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> [EM] Condorcet-Kemeny calculations are not NP-hard<BR></FONT><BR>>Some people have questioned why it is worth doing Condorcet-Kemeny calculations when there are faster Condorcet methods. The answer is that Condorcet-Kemeny >results offer lots of advantages, including one named advantage that is currently underappreciated and a significant advantage that has not yet been named or widely >recognized. </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">This is very cryptic. What is this named advantage and why haven't you named it here? Is the unnamed advantage also indescribable?</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">>The only valid disadvantage is that in very rare cases it fails the "independence of clones" criteria, yet this perceived disadvantage does not yield unfair results if all aspects of >VoteFair Ranking are used.</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">I'm not sure how rare it would be myself (an exact clone isn't required for a non-cloneproof method to have problems). So VoteFair doesn't use the Kemeny method then?</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">But having said that, failing independence of clones seems to me to be just one aspect of failing independence of irrelevant alternatives, which all Condorcet methods fail. So, for example, the Schulze method might not have problems when there are clones in the Smith Set, but it might have problems caused by a candidate introduced to have specific properties relative to the other candidates in the Smith Set. The Kemeny-Young method might (just speculating) not suffer as badly with this candidate. It's just that among the umbrella of irrelevant alternatives, clones have specifically been given their own criterion. You could probably make up other more obscure criteria under this umbrella but that cause just as many problems.<VAR id=yui-ie-cursor></VAR></DIV></DIV></div></body></html>