I think his point is that he prefers any and all Condorcet methods over IRV, and probably over any non-Condorcet method. I happen to agree.
--- On Sat, 10/11/08, Chris Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Chris Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [EM] IRV vs Condorcet vs Range/Score > To: "EM" <[email protected]>, "damon rasheed" <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> > Cc: "Dave Ketchum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Saturday, October 11, 2008, 5:14 AM > Dave Ketchum wrote: > > Let's see: > > A Condorcet method finds the candidate which would beat > each other > candidate in a run-off election, assuming such a candidate > exists. Thus > such a method meets the Condorcet criterion. > > Having copied such from Wikipedia, don't seem like I > grabbed much. > > Having no such candidate, we have a cycle of three or more > leaders in a > near tie and debate how to pick from them. > > Perhaps Chris is into this debate, which I agree is > important but am trying > to keep out of this thread, whose business is IRV vs > non-IRV. > > Perhaps there are other exceptions. > > DWK > > Dave, > "Condorcet" isn't decisive enough to qualify > as "a method". IRV is a method. > All I ask is that you specify some particular > "Condorcet method" (i.e. a method > that meets the Condorcet criterion) that you are sure you > prefer over IRV, so > that we can compare one method with another (and not one > method with one > criterion). > > 49: A > 24: B > 27: C>B > > A and C have only first-preference votes, A 49 and C 27. > Is that a "near tie"?? > > Chris Benham > > > > On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:26:55 -0400 Terry Bouricius wrote: > >Dave, > > > >You are using the term "Condorcet" in a way > that is increasingly common, > >but confusing to election method theorists, to mean a > ranked voting method > >that is easiest to explain by imagining a series of > one-on-one comparisons > >using a ranked ballot. What Chris B. was getting at is > that Condorcet is a > >CRITERION (in fact there is also a Condorcet-loser > criterion, which I > >think is more useful), which is used in evaluating > voting methods, rather > >than an actual voting method itself. There are probably > a dozen different > >voting methods that are Condorcet compliant, and many > others that aren't > >(complying with other criteria that some believe are > more crucial). The > >issue separating the various Condorcet methods is how > you find a winner > >when there is no Condorcet winner. > > > >Terry Bouricius > > > > Make the switch to the world's best email. > Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see > http://electorama.com/em for list info ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
