How did we get here? What I see called Condorcet is not really that.
On Feb 6, 2012, at 10:02 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
...
Say people vote rated ballots with 6 levels, and after the election
you see a histogram of candidate X and Y that looks like this:
(better)
6:Y X
5: Y X
4: YX
3: XY
2: X Y
1:X Y
(worse)
N:123456789
That is, 3 people rated X as 6 and only one person rated them as 1,
and vice versa for Y.
X wins, right?
If it's Condorcet, not necessarily. This is consistent with a 14:12
victory for Y over X.
I count 15 vs 6, being that all you can say in Condorcet is X>Y, X=Y,
and X<Y. There being no cycles in this election, I would not expect
any variation among Condorcet methods. Perhaps Jameson was thinking
of something other than Condorcet - consistent with saying "rated"
rather than "ranked"?
If you present the pairwise total, it's "obvious" to people that Y
should win. If you present the histogram, it's at least as "obvious"
to people that X should win. If what people find obvious isn't even
consistent (which even just pairwise isn't, of course; that's why
there is more than one Condorcet system), then you can't elevate
"obvious" to an unbreakable principle.
...
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
