> I think the "explicit clone preprocessing of the votes + Condorcet" > description that I gave below is a quite accurate definition of a method > that both eliminates the clone problems and has rich ballots (rich enough to > take position also on the order within the competing branch). >
I still think you have to spell things out more for us. If the tree is (((A,B),C),D) and I vote DBCA, what does my vote get corrected to? And I can easily think of several variations of how to preprocess votes into clone trees. In general, I think methods which try to infer structure from votes are tricky. Either you're risking nonmonotonicity by reading in more than is really there, or you could end up just reinventing a complicated way to restate DSC/DAC. Note that part of the SODA solution for the chicken dilemma -- that is, the enforcably-mutual preferences between candidates -- is tree-like. So I can see the potential advantages of trees, I just don't think it's fair to claim benefits for a method that's not well-described enough for us to construct pathologies. JQ ps. By the way, can anyone explain to me a scenario where DSC would be better than DAC? I understand that with full rankings they're equivalent, but I don't see when DSC is better.
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
