What are you trying to say??? Your lonely sentence is true, but I do not see why you say it.
DWK Paul Kislanko wrote: > Sentences should have subjects and predicates. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Ketchum > Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 9:08 PM > To: Jonathan Lundell > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [EM] simpler proof of "no conflict theorem" now trivial > > Maybe time to start over, unless someone can find something decent written > down! > > We are talking of ranked choice, such as IRV does. > > Normally possible to rank every candidate. Restrictions tolerable, but > MUST be able to rank at least best and second. > > Equal ranks permitted, when the voter sees a tie in value. > > Cycles must be expected and attended to. Here there are various ways of > attending to choose from. > > BTW - I choke on the word "sincere" - I keep my work tolerable by > accepting a ballot as being what the voter meant! Anyway, rare for a > voter to know enough about what other voters - guessing what this voter > might do - do in response. > > DWK > > On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:35:14 -0700 Jonathan Lundell wrote: > >>At 4:58 PM -0700 8/16/06, David Cary wrote: >> >> >>>Without knowing the exact wording of the criterion, it can be very >>>difficult to judge whether or not an election method meets the >>>criterion, or whether the criterion makes sense or contains >>>ambiguities. >>> >>>As stated on Wikipedia ( >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_criterion ), there is >>>certainly some ambiguity, as mentioned on the discussion page: >>> >>>"The Condorcet criterion for a voting system is that it chooses the >>>Condorcet winner when one exists." >>> >>>"The Condorcet candidate or Condorcet winner of an election is the >>>candidate who, when compared in turn with each of the other >>>candidates, is preferred over the other candidate." >>> >>>The ambiguity is about exactly how candidates are compared with each >>>other and what preferences are to be used. The balloted preferences >>>of the voting system in question? The sincere preferences of the >>>voters? Is there a hidden presumption that voters cast ballots that >>>are sincere, or are at least consistent with their sincere >>>preferences? Is the Condorcet criterion only applicable to certain >>>kinds of election methods? >> >> >>Good point. The previously cited paper "In Praise of Manipulation" is >>problematical in this regard, in that the authors get way too literal >>about the meaning of "sincere". >> >>I take the meaning of "preferred" above to equivalent to asking the >>voter in question to break a tie between the two candidates. If your >>vote will swing the outcome, which of these two candidates would you >>choose for the seat to be filled? >> >>The problem is, of course, that this is seldom if ever the context in >>which the voter actually marks a ballot, often for strategic reasons >>(fear of wasting a vote, wanting to bury a close competitor, etc). >> >>Hence the desirability of an election method that encourages a >>rational voter to cast a sincere ballot. >> >> >> >>>The more these ambiguities are resolved to make the Condorcet winner >>>dependent on the election method under consideration, the easier it >>>may be for an election method to satisfy the Condorcet criterion. >>> >>>The Wikipedia article is notably lacking any references. >> >> >>Many of the election-methods Wikipedia articles leave a lot to be >>desired (the Droop quota article is a good (bad) example). > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026 Do to no one what you would not want done to you. If you want peace, work for justice. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
