One of his thoughts caught my eye. On May 8, 2011, at 1:32 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
With Condorcet, one must rate many candidates and then one must resolve cycles. I prefer scorevoting.
We do not usually say "rate" with Condorcet but, thinking: Two thoughts fit together for Score. We optimize the ratings but, before we can really do that, we need to order the candidates from best to worst.
In Condorcet we also need to order the candidates - so it makes sense to separate this shared task before comparing the differences in the systems. So now, comparing the systems:
For either, order the candidates from best, that this voter hopes wins, to the collection of worst that this voter equally dislikes and wants to help none of.
For Score distribute ratings equally, with equal ratings ok for equal liking - trivial effort. Then optimize ratings - perhaps for each trio, B/S/W, adjust S up to help S beat W, or down to help B beat S - THIS is LABORIOUS.
For Condorcet simply rank as sorted, with equal rankings ok, and leaving worst unranked - trivial effort. DONE, for the voter is not concerned with cycles, a task for the method when there are three or more nearly tied candidates that form a cycle.
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
