Hi Jan! You wrote: > I strongly urge everyone to get into the habit of calling Condorcet > methods Instand Round Robin (IRR) methods. The Instant Round Robin > name is far more descriptive than "Condorcet".
I'm not so sure, Jan, since many Condorcet-efficient methods do not require all (n-1)*n/2 pairwise comparisons to be carried out. For example, ROWS is Condorcet-efficient and only requires n-1 comparisons, which is by far less. Also, I don't see why the fact that a method passes a certain criterion such as Condorcet-efficiency should have any influence on the method's name. However, I agree with you that when naming a method or criterion one should be careful to choose a descriptive name, and that naming after persons is very bad style (unless one can interpret the name as an acronym as in "RaMON"). > I think the concept > of a round robin tournament is widely understood, even among people > who are not sports fans. The general public will feel a lot more > comfortable with a voting method that is tied to a familiar concept > (round robin tournaments), than to a method with an unfamiliar name > that a lot of Americans don't even know how to pronounce. Well, I don't especially care about what Americans can pronounce :-) > Similarly, the Condorcet Winner could be called the Beats-All Winner. > It's a lot easier for a newcomer to the subject of election methods > to understand and remember the idea of a Beats-All Winner than a > Condorcet Winner. This I find a very good idea, especially because the concept of Beats-All Winner was known hundreds of years before Condorcet. I will try to switch to this terminology. Yours, Jobst ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
