> Rob Brown wrote: > > Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd <at> lomaxdesign.com> writes: > > Color (even gray scale) can instantly show the Condorcet > winner in a > > pairwise matrix. I'll use gray scale. When the candidate naming the > > row wins, leave the background color of the cell white. When the > > column candidate wins, gray it. The winner is the only > candidate with > > a white row all the way across. (Color the cell with the same name > > row and column white also.) > > Yes, but all it shows is the winner, and only if that > candidate is the condorcet > winner. What if the winner is not a condorcet winner? The > matrix gives no hint > of how the winner was arrived at, short of "here's all the > numbers, get out your > calculator and have fun!" Nor does it show anything about > how non-winners did > in comparison. The color hints that "number of pairwise wins" is the > determining factor, but it's not. >
As I see it, there are two problems here. First, a Condorcet method is a process that translates a 3-dimensional input (ballots, alternatives, ranks) into a two-dimensional represemtation of the result of the process. I played around with a graphic to show how ranked ballots look when turned into a bar-graph and it looks like http://www.kislanko.com/poll.jpg, which I didn't find helpful enough to use. > Basically, it just doesn't communicate what a bar graph does. Well, the second problem is that a bar graph sometimes isn't able to communicate enough. The closest I can come to translating ranked ballots (NOT a pairwise matrix) into a bar graph along the lines of your example would be something that has a row for each candidate that shows the percentage of votes for each rank in different colors in the same bar. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
