Sorry for the triple posting. I think it came from a glitch in refreshing the page; I got a message about resending data.
--- On Mon, 1/31/11, Aaron Armitage <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Aaron Armitage <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [EM] An interesting real election > To: [email protected], "Kevin Venzke" <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, January 31, 2011, 3:56 PM > > > --- On Mon, 1/31/11, Kevin Venzke <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > From: Kevin Venzke <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [EM] An interesting real election > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Monday, January 31, 2011, 12:04 AM > > Hi Aaron, > > > > --- En date de : Dim 30.1.11, Aaron Armitage <[email protected]> > > a écrit : > > >1 has a path to 6 at least as strong as 6's path > to 1, > > namely 1>3>6, at > > >15-11 and 14-11. It > > >seems a little odd, to me at least, that 6's path > to 1 > > should benefit 2 > > >but not 6 itself. > > > > When you say "benefit" do you mean "elect" or > something > > more broad? It > > seems to me election is the only meaningful benefit > but of > > course only > > one candidate can receive it. > > > > In this context I mean benefit in the pairwise comparison. > So in this > case, using Schulze, 2 receives a pairwise benefit against > 1 from the > direct 6 vs. 1 comparison, but 6 itself (himself, > herself...) does not. > Actually winning office is the main reason why a candidate > would care > about his pairwise comparisons, but not the only one -- > doing well gives > him a stronger platform for future elections, makes him > more attractive to > donors, makes him more likely to be taken seriously, and so > on. > > > >Starting from the top seems the only way of > ensuring > > that the path that > > >orders the two > > >candidates relative to each other is the one > which > > actually contributes > > >to the final outcome. > > > > I don't understand this. Are you saying the Schulze > outcome > > in this > > election is an example where these two things > differed? > > > > Well, yes. 6>1 is part of 2's successful path to 1, even > though 1 is > placed over 6 by the 1>3>6 path. > > > It's true that 1's path to 6 is better than the > reverse, > > but the only > > method that will never elect the loser of such a > comparison > > is Schulze. > > > > Kevin > > > > Maybe I'm missing something. I ranked pairs, aren't the > strongest paths > locked in before the weaker ones are considered? That is, > the weakest link > of the weaker path is only considered after all the links > of the better > path are locked in. > > > > > > > ---- > > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > > > > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
