First, quoting Wikipedia:
A Condorcet method is any single-winner election method that meets
the Condorcet criterion, that is, which always selects the Condorcet
winner, the candidate who would beat each of the other candidates in
a run-off election, if such a candidate exists. In modern examples,
voters rank candidates in order of preference. There are then
multiple, slightly differing methods for calculating the winner, due
to the need to resolve circular ambiguities—including the Kemeny-
Young method,Ranked Pairs, and the Schulze method. Almost all of
these methods give the same result if there are fewer than 4
candidates in the circularly-ambiguous Smith set and voters
separately rank all of them.
I have heard this complaint before, so am listening for help.
WHAT should I say when I want EXACTLY what is described as "Condorcet"
above?
Dave Ketchum
On Apr 17, 2010, at 9:25 PM, Markus Schulze wrote:
Hallo,
Dave Ketchum wrote (18 April 2010):
Why IRV? Have we not buried that deep enough?
Why not Condorcet which does better with about
the same voting?
Why TTR? Shouldn't that be avoided if trying
for a good method? TTR requires smart deciding
as to which candidates to vote on.
Will not Condorcet attend to clones with minimum
pain? Voters can rank them together (with equal
or adjacent ranks).
Does not Condorcet properly attend to "symmetric"
with a voted cycle?
In my opinion, "Condorcet" refers to a criterion
rather than to an election method.
Markus Schulze
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
