On 2.10.2012, at 4.37, Michael Ossipoff wrote: > A) What is it that is gained by using traditional (unimproved) > Condorcet instead of Symmetrical Improved Condorcet? > > The downsides of unimproved are: > > .....1. FBC failure (though unimproved-Condorcet advocates speculate > that people won't mind)
The traditional interpretation of ranked votes may well support FBC "well enough" in the classical Condorcet methods. > .....2. Interpretation of equal-top and equal-bottom ranking is > contrary to the voter's preferences, intent and wishes. I guess by default the meaning of equal-top and equal-bottom ranking is to rank the candidates equal. The voter may have interest to cast a stronger vote where the equal-top and equal-bottom rankings have some additional strength, but that's another story, and not the default interpretation of ranked votes. > Those are two drawbacks. If you advocate unimproved Condorcet, then it > must offer some advantages--important enough advantages to outweigh > the two disadvantages listed above. Simplicity. Lack of interest to truncate one's vote (and lose preference information) at the top and at the bottom. Juho ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
