2012/1/24 robert bristow-johnson <[email protected]> > On 1/24/12 7:01 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > >> Does anyone have any references of academic papers that talk about the >> relationship between the honest CW and the honest Range winner? Ie, when >> are they necessarily the same or not? >> > > ya know, i still wonder why these guys continue to say that Range/Score > does a better job of electing the CW than does a condorcet-compliant > method. the information collected from voters is not the same. you could > be ranking > > Ghandi > MotherTeresa > Stalin > Satan > > and it would make no more difference than if it was 4 candidates, all you > really liked nearly equally well. but for Score it makes a big difference > in how you score it. > > how are these apples and oranges compared? what assumptions are made in > translating ranked-ballot data to score-ballot data? > > i don't see how you can talk about the relationship from Condorcet to > Score without making some assumptions. though there *is* a simple and > direct inverse relationship. > > I don't want to get into the whole "more Condorcet-efficient than Condorcet" can of worms; I think it's interesting, but it would be a distraction for the paper I'm writing. All I want is a simple result that indicates that the Range and Condorcet winners tend to be the same in at least some circumstances.
Jameson
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
