Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:16:55 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
A possible tiebreaker for same names would be to prepend (or append)
the state of origin to each candidate name. In case two have the
same name in the same state, the state decides who gets to be
"number one" and "number two". These corner cases would be extremely
unlikely, but it doesn't hurt to specify them.
My point was that this is a problem affecting ANY election method,
thus not needing special attention for Condorcet.
Again, the method does not matter. If the name Bush turns up from two
different sources it is essential to determine whether it is:
One candidate, for whom the votes must be summed or
Two candidates, competing separately, that must somehow be
identified as such.
In that case, use whatever identity connection method is used with
Plurality. It would have to be formalized (for the reasons I mentioned),
and to break ties one could use (as I have suggested) the state of
origin. It's going to be very unlikely that you'll have two George W.
Bushes in Texas, for instance. As you said, the method doesn't matter.
Assuming that this represents 100 votes for A then 100 A>C is
represented. If B was also in the matrix there would be 100 A>B. This
last 100 fails to show up below:
Oops. Yes, that's true. Still, you get the point: the method (when
properly implemented) takes two sorted matrices and produces a sorted
matrix, possibly larger in size, but still a valid input for later merges.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
