On Thu, 26 May 2005 10:02:49 +0200 Jobst Heitzig wrote:
Welcome to the list, Ken!
You wrote:
the fundamental problem with
plain Condorcet is that it doesn't directly take into consideration which
position candidates are ranked in.
Well, I would rather say that this is the main *advantage* of methods
which consider pairwise preferences and/or approval scores instead of
rank positions, because the rank position per se has no significance at
all!
The fundamental problem of methods based on rank positions is that
position k on one ballot can mean a completely different thing than
position k on another ballot. In my opinion, rank positions must never
be confused with utilities or ratings!
I second this -
Given a preference for Kerry over Bush, this gets stated in each ballot
that shows the preference. Trying to read something different about this
as stated in K>B K>N>B N>K>B or A>B>K>C>D>B or even N>K does not help.
However, I am quite eager to know what method you propose. Could you
please repost it since I seem to have missed your original posting?
As he says in the subject, he aims to improve Borda.
As to partial ballots, the voter has chosen to rank those not mentioned
together, equally, below all those mentioned.
Yours, Jobst
--
[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
