Yes, IRV is a good example. Most Condorcet methods do the comparisons/evaluation just once (when all the candidates are in the same situation).
Juho --- On Tue, 11/11/08, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [EM] Three rounds > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: election-methods@lists.electorama.com > Date: Tuesday, 11 November, 2008, 2:47 AM > If I understand you 'sequential elimination' is IRV > and not Condorcet. > > DWK > > On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:01:36 +0000 (GMT) Juho Laatu wrote: > > The sequential elimination processes tends to > introduce additional problems. Most Condorcet methods > don't have this problem. > > > > Condorcet may have some other problems that the > sequential elimination based approach may avoid, but > especially in large public elections with independent voter > decision making and without too accurate knowledge about the > behaviour of other voters the performance of Condorcet > methods is very good. > > > > (Just checking how one could eliminate some of the > problems of sequential elimination (e.g. by using approval > and avoid losing the "eliminated" candidates).) > > > > Juho > > > > > > --- On Mon, 10/11/08, Dave Ketchum > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>From: Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Subject: Re: [EM] Three rounds > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Cc: election-methods@lists.electorama.com > >>Date: Monday, 10 November, 2008, 8:10 PM > >>How do your thoughts compare with Condorcet as a > competitor? > >> It: > >> Normally is defined as not doing runoffs. > >> Has no problem with voters offering whatever > quantity > >>of ranks they choose, including doing bullet > voting. > >> > >>DWK > >> > >>On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:05:16 +0000 (GMT) Juho Laatu > wrote: > >> > >>>FYI. Finland used to have three rounds in the > >> > >>presidential elections. Since 1994 a typical direct > two > >>round method has been used. Before that (in most > elections) > >>the voters first elected 300 (or 301) electors who > then > >>voted in three rounds (two candidates at the last > round). > >> > >>>Reasons behind moving to the direct two round > system > >> > >>included assumed general popularity of a direct > election, > >>some problems with heavy trading and planning of > votes by > >>the electors, possibility of black horses and other > voting > >>patterns that are not based on the citizens' > votes. > >>Maybe three rounds / three election days in a > direct > >>election would have been too expensive and too > tiring. > >> > >>>- - - - - > >>> > >>>One somewhat related method: > >>> > >>>I sometimes played with the idea that in IRV > one would > >> > >>not totally eliminate the least popular (first > place) > >>candidates but would use some softer means and > would allow > >>the "eliminated" candidates to win later > if they > >>turn out to be the favourites of many voters (after > their > >>first preference candidates have lost all chances > to win). > >> > >>>One could e.g. force supporters of the > >> > >>"eliminated" candidates to approve more > than one > >>candidate (at least one of the > "remaining" > >>candidates) (instead of just bullet voting their > second > >>preference). On possible way to terminate the > algorithm > >>would be to stop when someone has reached >50% > approval > >>level. > >> > >>>Also in "non-instant" runoffs one > could e.g. > >> > >>force the voters to approve at least one on the > >>"remaining" candidates. (One could > eliminate more > >>than one candidate at different rounds.) > >> > >>>Juho > -- > [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