> > > From: robert bristow-johnson <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:30:22 -0400 > Subject: Re: [EM] hello from DLW of "A New Kind of Party":long time > electoral reform enthusiast/iconoclast-wannabe... > On 10/30/11 9:33 PM, David L Wetzell wrote: > >> So there's no cardinal or ordinal utility for any candidate out there and >> all effective rankings of candidates used to determine the Condorcet >> Candidate are ad hoc. >> > > what do you mean by that? do you mean that any of the Condorcet-compliant > methods are ad hoc? >
If my valuations of n candidates (or a subset therein) are fuzzy then my rankings of them may be ad hoc and the odds are somebody's going to be flipping a coin(possibly more than once) at some point. Thus, there's less of a benefit from being Condorcet-compliant than might seem to be the case in theory. As such, arguments that dismiss IRV or IRV3 for failing to always be Condorcet-compliant are not slam dunks. dlw > > -- > > r b-j [email protected] > > "Imagination is more important than knowledge." >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
