On Jan 13, 2010, at 4:13 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:

> On Jan 13, 2010, at 4:49 AM, Juho wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 2010, at 9:14 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>> 
>>> it still is a curiosity to me how, historically, some leaders and 
>>> proponents of election reform thunked up the idea to have a ranked-order 
>>> ballot and then took that good idea and married it to the IRV protocol.  
>>> with the 200 year old Condorcet idea in existence, why would they do that?
>> 
>> 1) The basic idea of IRV is in some sense natural. It is like a street 
>> fight. The weakest players are regularly kicked out and they must give up. 
>> I'm not saying that this would lead to good results but at least this game 
>> is understandable to most people. Condorcet on the other hand is more like a 
>> mathematical equation, and the details of the most complex Condorcet 
>> variants may be too much for most voters. Here I'm not saying that each 
>> voter (and not even each legislator) should understand all the details of 
>> their voting system. The basic Condorcet winner rule is however a simple 
>> enough principle to be explained to all. But it may be that IRV is easier to 
>> market (to the legislators and voters) from this point of view.
> 
> When there is a CW in Condorcet, the CW has won in comparison with each other 
> candidate.  While a few may like X or Z enough better to have given such top 
> ranking, the fact that all the voters together prefer the CW over each other 
> should count, and does with Condorcet.

This seems to me to be a claim that is at best not self-evident (in the sense 
that Pareto or anti-dictatorship, say, are). While I'm not a fan of 
cardinal-utility voting systems, it seems entirely possible to make a utility 
argument or rationale against the *necessity* of electing the CW in all cases. 

That is, as a thought experiment, if we could somehow divine a workable 
electorate-wide utility function, it's at least arguable that the utility 
winner would legitimately trump the Condorcet winner, if different, while you 
couldn't make a similar argument wrt Pareto or dictatorship.

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Reply via email to