------------------------------------------------------------ At 01.09.05 22:37 +1200 Wednesday, Craig Carey wrote: ... >Mr Ketchum: to state a position you can post up the equations >that define when this Condorcet method you like, will find the >wrong number of winners. Is Condorcet like something you found >out of a garbage can?, or do you have principles that allow ... ------------------------------------------------------------ At 01.09.06 02:52 -0400 Thursday, Dave Ketchum wrote: ... > When he asks for equations he really is trying to drag me into his >math world. I resist that partly for no time and partly because, while ... Mr Ketchum has a principle which is that some preferential methods ought pick the wrong number of winners. In the context of the question that asked for the rule or test saying when a method (any method or just a repaired or plain Condorcet method) was right to not get the right winners, please state the nature of the maths world that you wish to depart from. If it is like changing a room, it may be that the politicians in the next room may not be too friendly too. Indeed they could ask the exact same question. You did say you were somewhat political in view or something. You probably felt that whatever bugs Condorcet had, were things that it and not so many other methods, could be let off on?. Can the principle of Condorcets weighty bugs be generalised?. >B>C; AND C>A) he would be sort of correct. Condorcet backers look for >sensible ways to resolve such cycles. But they may not find such methods. Arguments that would reject repair attempts of Condorcet, can be crippled by allowing regions where the wrong numbers of winners are found. Does Mr Ketchum defend Condorcet by having principles for different methods?: holes in Condorcet and anti-voter behaviour in repaired variants. Where there are different tests for different methods, then that can all be explained to the Ombudsmen of voters. But such intelligent people are recipients of labels that they would be trying to trap a political mind into mere maths. Take as much time as you like Mr Ketchum. If the Condorcet repairers do believe the method can be fixed, discussion would be handicapped by woodworker's style to method design. Note above that Mr Ketchum used the word "resist" rather than a word like refuse, It means that members can't yet write off a part of the list as a source of info on why it good to get winner set wrong. Mr Ketchum's refusal to provide the answer is limiting others' ability to show he is in the wrong to defend Condorcet or all methods in its class: ones with 'paradox' regions. Here is my version of the Fluffy the Dog example: > > AB 48 : 1 winner (no. 1) > B 3 > CB 49 > > Condorcet: B wins : A:B = 48:52, B:C = 51:49, C:A = 49:48 > FPTP: C wins > One thing that Mr Ketchum might be aiming to withhold from us is his opinion on papers have the votes in the ratio 48:(3+x):(49-x). There is maybe not much to think about until the maths world of Mr Ketchum is defined better. It was mistake to call it my world: I would analyse his position but he was withholding fully general information about the nature of 'paradox/wrong_number_of_winners' regions that arcs would pass through. Once you get the first question answered I may have another. ... >Craig said something unkind about Condorcet, and I could not resist >joining in at 16:40 EDT. > What about answering the question?. Mr Ketchum seems to believe that Condorcet can be fixed. But what is a true variant and what isn't, is something that is not obvious or not known. Once the list finally quits debating over why all methods can be allowed to pick the wrong number of winners then I will be in a better position to reject all Condorcet variants. It allows harsher tests to be adopted. Condorcet could still pass but ... >Dave Ketchum > >On Wed, 05 Sep 2001 22:21:51 -0700 Richard Moore wrote: ... Craig Carey http://www.ijs.co.nz/quota-13.htm http://www.ijs.co.nz/one-man-one-vote.htm (
