> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Myers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:11 PM > To: Paul Kislanko > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [EM] thoughts on the pairwise matrix > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 06:41:34PM -0600, Paul Kislanko wrote: > > I don't have to support my argument, since I am asking for > those who claim > > Condorcet methods are "better" to support the claim that > those methods are > > "like" Nx(N-1)/2 different elections. They are not, unless > I get to make > > Nx(N-1)/2 choices, which I don't get to do. > > It seems we could easily generalize most Condorcet methods to > allow the voter > to specify an NxN matrix instead of a sorted list. This would > provide the same > information as the C(N,2) elections, with the added ability > for a user to > provide an arbitrary preference graph that > > - violates transitivity > - does not connect every pair of nodes, > - or contains cycles. > > Violations of transitivity and acylicity seem of dubious > value to me, but they > could be accommodated. So I'd claim that ranked ballots are > just as good as > the hypothetical C(N,2) elections, if you can say that two > candidates are > equally preferred on your ballot.
Nice, but support your claim with some kind of proof. Otherwise, it is just a "belief", and I am not required to adopt it. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
