Michael is into cascade voting. I joined this thread because Condorcet got
mentioned, and will stay with that detail
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 13:56:36 -0400 Michael Allan wrote:
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).
Clarification:
39A>38B and 38A>37C and ?B ? ?C makes A the CW for winning over
each other candidate., for which B vs C matters not.
5A>4B and 5B>4C and 5C>3A is a cycle with no CW (I emphasize 'near
tie' because that is descriptive and I believe encourages useful thinking).
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.
Cycles happen, and perhaps should be reported, but are NOT a reason for he
system to do anything special beyond normal analysis and reporting.
Of course reporting should e based on total voting, thus updated as soon as
practical after any vote. Big point is that cycles happen and nothing gets
done to encourage or discourage their existence.
2. A decision ring.
Cascade discussion deleted.
(All of this applies only to cascade voting. There are other methods,
and I'm afraid I interrupted your discussion of them. Please
resume...)
--
[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
