Dave Ketchum wrote: > I see the Condorcet phantom as going thru the same motions as a real > primary or general election, but letting the real elections do the > nominating and pay no official attention to results of the phantom.
I see a phantom that will nevertheless have real effects (ghost in the machine). You see a test bed or proving grounds for an election method (machine in the ghost). Same ghost, different machines. (But I've interrupted your discussions.) > That the phantom votes would be shiftable because current counts should be > displayed during the voting/polling period does not make consensus exciting > to me. > > I mentioned cycles because their resolution formulas are a hot topic and a > variety of examples could help thinking. Maybe decision rings could help. The resolution is slow (depends on vote shifting), but maybe someone can improve that. (I needed a slow and thoughtful process to solve a real world problem, external to the counting mechanism.) Just to illustrate, here's a "Condorcet resolution" by a decision ring: 0. A clear Condorcet winner (null case). http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/_/decision-0-stable.png No need for a resolution with that result. All 58 voters are in agreement. 1. A Condorcet cycle. http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/_/decision-1-vacuum.png Call that a "Condorcet cycle" because it's (as you say) a "near tie". Say the tie includes all those receiving 5+ votes apiece (but ignore the fiver on the bottom, pretend she's a four). Two problems with above i) it's not apparent to the voters that there's a cycle (tie), and ii) if we make it clear and turn up the decision heat ("hurry up, we're picking the winner now") they may behave chaotically. They may pile up on the winner or something, so the end result is overly sensitive to initial vote shifts. 2. A decision ring. http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/_/decision-2-ring.png So rather than resolve by addition (pile up), we'll resolve by subtraction. The tied candidates form into a "decision ring" by voting for each other. For your purposes, the system automatically aligns their votes in this manner. The resulting whirlpool of assent (flow volume 52) is equally shared by all members of the ring. This formalizes their tie, and signals that it's time for a final decision. 3. The first vote shift. http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/_/decision-3-out.png Votes then shift to resolve the tie. In this case, the first move was made by a ring member. She shifts her vote to another member, and thus exits the ring. She's signalling that she's no longer a contender. This is only a resolution *framework*. It leaves much unspecified (not needed for my own problem). How do you force the timing? Maybe you eject the weakest members of the ring at regular intervals. What is the resolution criterion? It's not ring membership (that is only a signal). Raph Frank has suggested counting only the votes that are received from outside of the ring. In other words, factor out the cyclic flow that *equalizes* the ring members, and leave them with what *distinguishes* them. That's your resolution count. (All of this applies only to cascade voting. There are other methods, and I'm afraid I interrupted your discussion of them. Please resume...) -- Michael Allan Toronto, 647-436-4521 http://zelea.com/ ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
