________________________________
De : Jameson Quinn <jameson.qu...@gmail.com>
À : electionscie...@googlegroups.com
Cc : EM <election-methods@lists.electorama.com>
Envoyé le : Vendredi 3 février 2012 22h06
Objet : Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet
>
>Condorcet systems fundamentally try to maximize the wrong thing. They try to
>maximize the odds of electing the Condorcet winner, even though it's a proven
>mathematical fact that the Condorcet winner is not necessarily the option whom
>the electorate prefers.
>>
>
Trouble is that the ballots ARE the voters' statements as to which candidate IS
the CW. The above paragraph seems to be based on the ballots sometimes not
truly representing the thoughts of the voters voting them.
>
>
>
No, he's saying that when the CW and the true, honest utility winner differ,
the latter is better. I agree, but it's not an argument worth making, because
most people who don't already agree will think it's a stupid one.
From my perspective the trouble with the top statement is that sincere
Condorcet efficiency and utility performance seem to be correlated. I don't
know any way
to design a method to specifically perform better at utility, assuming
strategic voters.
Note that, if you try to take this issue back to Warren's sims,
strategically-voted Condorcet methods within his framework have not just bad
utility but bad sincere
Condorcet efficiency as well. (I don't know the numbers but it's impossible to
believe they are any good.) So I don't know where one could look to argue that
maximizing sincere Condorcet efficiency vs. utility performance can be done.
Kevin
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
