Not clear to me what you meant.
While ballots are almost identical, such that Condorcet can accept what
voters have done by IRV rules, their processing is entirely different.
IRV is interested in first choices. If it decides that A is a loser it
must go back to the ballots that ranked A top and reclassify them by next
rank of each.
Condorcet is interested in which candidate is best liked. For this it
needs an NxN array summing all the ballots. If it is convenient to count
the ballots in multiple locations this is fine - create an NxN array at
each location and sum them together in one final location for analysis.
DWK
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 06:39:53 +0000 (GMT) Juho Laatu wrote:
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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
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
