Hello Rob,
Thanks for the good and balanced postings!
BR, Juho
On Aug 14, 2005, at 03:35, Rob Lanphier wrote:
On Sat, 2005-08-13 at 19:13 -0500, Paul Kislanko wrote:
"Shortest computer program" is not a criterion that any voter would
care
about.
"Rules for voters" and "specification for counting programs" are two
different things.
In fairness, the specification for counting votes is something that
voters will probably care about, and it is one of the biggest
liabilities of Condorcet. Part of the uphill battle for Condorcet
advocates is to convince people that even if they don't understand
exactly how it works, it's still a better system (the tactic I've
usually advocated is endorsement from trusted smart people).
The rules for voters are much simpler for Condorcet than under Range.
Under Range, failure to employ some counterintuitive strategies will
lead to a weakening of your vote (i.e. you should pretend it's
approval). Under Condorcet, sincerity is almost always optimal, which
is tough to beat from a simplicity standpoint.
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
] On Behalf Of Warren Smith
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 6:58 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [EM] simplcity of range v condorcet
It was recently claimed on EM that condorcet had "simpler rules" than
range. I dispute that. I challenge people to write computer
programs to perform condorcet and range elections. I have so
far never encountered anybody who produced a shorter program
for condorcet.
Not even close.
For any condorcet method whatever, but espcially for some of the
fancier ones.
wds
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em
for list info
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
info
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
info
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
