On May 17, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 10:12 PM 5/16/2010, Dave Ketchum wrote:
On May 16, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 02:16 PM 5/16/2010, Dave Ketchum wrote:
On May 16, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 06:34 PM 5/15/2010, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Some objections to Condorcet could be:
1. It is not expressive enough (compared to ratings)
Truly less expressive in some ways than ratings.
This is balanced by not demanding ratings details.
And more expressive by measuring differences between each pair
of candidates.
I had written promoting Condorcet.
Kevin Venzke offered some objections, #1 is above, indicating that
ratings have the value of being more expressive. I responded to his
thoughts, also above.
Abd ul, who often writes usefully, wrote a book here, wandering into
various topics such as Bucklin.
The base topic is Condorcet. It would take a book to respond to all
your extensions such as IRV. Likewise I see no benefit in adding
Borda - Range/score is an adequate source for ratings.
From Wikipedia:
Condorcet: For each ballot, compare the ranking of each candidate on
the ballot to every other candidate, one pair at a time (pairwise),
and tally a "win" for the higher-ranked candidate.
Range voting uses a ratings ballot; that is, each voter rates each
candidate with a number within a specified range, such as 0 to 99 or 1
to 5.
In Condorcet the counting is of pairs of candidates so the
possibilities for A vs B cannot be other than A>B , A=B, or A<B - no
way to have a skipped rank.
In Range the limits can be other than 0-99, but those are suitable for
the discussion.
Dave, you apparently don't understand a good deal of what you read.
That's okay, take your time.
My point was about your use of "demanding ratings details," which is
not intrinsic to range methods. In particular, I've been pointing
out, Borda is a ranked method that is a Range method, and it becomes
full range if the method simply allows one to equal rank any two (or
more) candidates without disturbing the points given to other
candidates.
The topic is "ratings" and, Range being adequate for the cause, there
is no need to wander into other methods.
I used care in
mentioning ranking to avoid complications such as you add - and
clearly included equal ratings and rankings. Your extensions could
be
useful if they contributed value, but not if they just complicate.
Assuming I LIKE A, B & C are almost as good, and I DISlike D:
I can rate A=99, B=98, C=98, D=0 or rank A high, B&C each medium,
and
D low (A>B=C>D).
In ranking all I can say is to rank B&C above D and below A..
Go back to the example and see B and C each rated 98 because I DO NOT
want them to lose to D.
The example ratings of A, B,&C do the most I can to make any of
them
win over D; the example rankings do the most I can to make A win, D
lose, and give B&C an equal chance.
In Condorcet I ranked A over B and C over D but could not express
the
magnitude of these differences. In Score I must rate with numeric
values that include the differences.
You are showing, Dave, that you have completely missed the point.
Again, you use "must." No, a Range ballot can simply be a list of
ranks.
Such a list might be - but numbers would make more sense with limits
such as 99.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
