> > I apologize if my comments came off as an attack. I am just > trying to > understand your complaint, and unfortunately I still don't. If you > don't want to address the question, then from my point of view, your > complaint doesn't make sense and I just have to consider it "proven" > not valid and move on. (likewise, it's your right to not care if I > or others dismiss your complaint)
Jobst and I made the point awhile back that a mapping of ranked ballots to pairwise preferences isn't necessarily exact. People say constructing a pairwise matrix is "like" N x (N-1)/2 different 2-alternative elections, but it is not. Ballots that are an exact reflection of preference would allow me to make all N x (N-1)/2 choices. The argument is made that a "rational" person would construct a ranked ballot so that that is the case, with which I disagree. The reason is that when I must consider ALL ALTERNATIVES AT ONCE, I have to balance all of the issues, too. When I am allowed to consider the alternatives 2 at a time, I need only choose between the issues upon which they disagree. The best example I can think of is "ranking foods I like". Because I list ice cream over brussells sprouts over brocolli in that list does not mean that given a choice between the two vegetables that I'd choose the sports. Now, any ranked ballot method will require me to make those compromises. My mathematical objection is to cycle-breaking rules that pretend to use my preferences when they are really making identifiable inferences/assumptions. I just think those should explicitly be listed. I DO prefer ranked ballots, and philosophically like Condorcet methods. I just think there may be extensions that are more desirable the ones that have been studied to death. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
