Given:
35 AC
33 BC
32 C
I see:
IRV will discard C, letting A win.
Condorcet will see 65 C winning over 35 A
I LIKE Condorcet. What does this mean below?
DWK
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:55:53 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I assume you mean the later no harm property?
In effect, this means that you cannot look at a later choice on a ballot
until you are sure one of the following 3 conditions is true
a) the candidate at the current choice is already elected
b) the candidate at the current choice cannot be elected
c) the later choices can in no way affect the election of the current choice
c) folds in on a) and b) as if later choices cannot affect
election/elimination of the current candidate then you already know if
the candidate is elected or eliminated.
In effect, the process has to be:
1) Look at all first choices
2) elect and/or eliminate some candidates based on current choice total
3) reweight ballots and recompute totals using the highest candidate on
each ballot still undecided
4) goto 2) unless all seats filled
Basically, all you will have is a list of candidates and a total for
each candidate. You don't know voter rankings as you are not allowed to
look at them. How can you determine who is elected or eliminated ? IRV
seems the only reasonable way of doing it. The only possible other
piece of info is the rankings of eliminated and elected candidates, but
I don't see how useful they would be.
Maybe asset voting could be used. After the round, each candidate can
give some/all his votes to other candidates. Any candidate above the
quota gets elected, and also candidates can resign. Each ballot is then
rescaled based on what percentage was spent by its current holder.
However, if asset voting is used, then there is no point in doing IRV as
well. I guess it could be used as a deadlock breaker or something.
Raphfrk
Interesting site
what if anyone could modify the laws
www.wikocracy.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; election-methods@electorama.com
Sent: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] IFNOP Method (was Re: Question about Condorcet methods)
Maybe there is some potential in doing the IRV style never
considering all the given opinions in some better way. I don't have
any opinion yet on if this is that case but maybe something can be
found.
Juho Laatu
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
