On May 16, 2010, at 2:17 AM, Kevin Venzke wrote:
--- En date de : Sam 15.5.10, Dave Ketchum
<[email protected]> a écrit :
On May 14, 2010, at 7:08 PM, Kevin
Venzke wrote:
4. Too complicated to explain, or propose (a
conceptual hurdle with
Condorcet is that we leave the actual ballots for the
pairwise matrix
right away, making it hard to understand how voting
different ways
could change things)
Some Condorcet methods of handling
cycles are truly complex - I recommend choosing a method for
which cycle explaining is doable.
Counting into the matrix should
class as understandable.
It's possible. I do think it would be helpful if Condorcet could be
defined in terms of how a single ballot "goes through the process." In
essence Condorcet sucks all the data out of the ballots like a
vacuum and
finds the best winner without thinking about which ballot said what.
This
makes for a pretty good method but it's also what means Condorcet
provides
relatively few concrete guarantees to the individual voter.
Here's one attempt to describe the Condorcet process from the point of
view of one single ballot for one simple Condorcet method
(minmax(margins)).
The method counts how many additional supporters each candidate would
need (or have extra) to beat all other candidates in pairwise
comparisons.
From one single ballot point of view, if one ranks X above Y in the
ballot then X will need one vote less to beat Y and Y will need one
vote more to beat X.
Juho
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
