Sorry I haven't replied on this thread for a while. I think that I got
some agreement on some factual points, but didn't really explain why
these points mattered.
I admit that you can come up with examples where, because of irrational
voting, winning-votes is advantageous in terms of electing a
Sorry for the huge quote block at the top of this message, but I tried to
snip out that which was no longer relevant...
A beats B, 70% winning votes (25% losing)
B beats C, 52% winning votes (45% losing)
C beats A, 50% winning votes (40% losing)
By virtue of a slight perturbation (the
Adam Tarr wrote:
Despite the fact that this debate has been on the list since long
before I showed up, I really think we're making progress.
I agree.
I wrote and Blake responded
A beats B, 70% winning votes (25% losing)
B beats C, 52% winning votes (45% losing)
C beats A, 50%
On Mon, 1 Apr 2002 01:04:43 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adam wrote in part-
One final thought. on 3/20 I posted a message about Approval Completed
Condorcet. The idea was to use a graded ballot (ABCDEF, for example). If
there was not a Condorcet winner, then the candidate with the
Despite the fact that this debate has been on the list since long before I
showed up, I really think we're making progress.
I wrote and Blake responded
A beats B, 70% winning votes (25% losing)
B beats C, 52% winning votes (45% losing)
C beats A, 50% winning votes (40% losing)
By virtue of a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I apologize for ataking a while to get back to this thread; I have been out of e-mail
contact.
Take all the time you want. I far prefer thoughtful replies to speedy
ones, and I hope my own email reflects this.
Blake wrote, I responded, and Blake wrote again,
The
Adam Tarr wrote:
The point is that if my first choice is A, the method penalizes me
for not choosing between B and C, by strengthening one or both
candidates, and therefore weakening A.
Certainly not both candidates! In the zero-information election, you
don't know which one you
Partial rankings are penalized.
I don't think it would be a strong exaggeration to characterize this as the
crux of your argument. You basically say, Ranked Pairs ignores partial
rankings, while SSD does not. Since partial rankings are penalized, this
allows those who are unaware of this
Are you claiming that it is always, or generally, a bad idea to give a
complete ranking in RP. I believe that to be false. If you don't have
any particular strategic knowledge, you should give a full ranking.
I agree, it is unlikely that this is always the case. In my example,
however, I
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Rob LeGrand wrote:
Adam wrote:
49: Bush
24: Gore
27: Nader,Gore
Bush beats Nader 49-27
Nader beats Gore 27-24
Gore beats Bush 51-49
With ranked pairs, the Gore-Bush defeat is overturned, and Bush wins,
despite a true majority preferring Gore to Bush.
Adam Tarr wrote:
This is a totally reasonable strategic truncation on the part of the
Bush camp. They have nothing to lose, since Nader is a sure loser
anyway, and the election to gain. If these people vote Gore second
(which is their obvious second choice) then all they do is make Gore
Blake wrote:
So, is the point of your example that the Bush voter's are dishonest
then?
Dishonest? Is all strategic voting tantamount to dishonesty? If so,
then I agree that the Bush voters are dishonest. If not, I see no
reason to slander the (imaginary) Bush voters like that. Their
Adam wrote:
49: Bush
24: Gore
27: Nader,Gore
Bush beats Nader 49-27
Nader beats Gore 27-24
Gore beats Bush 51-49
With ranked pairs, the Gore-Bush defeat is overturned, and Bush wins,
despite a true majority preferring Gore to Bush. In SSD the Nader-Gore
defeat gets overturned, and
13 matches
Mail list logo
