From: "Kevin Venzke" <[email protected]>
> It's true that *with the ballots as cast* any Condorcet-compliant method
> would have
> worked identically.
�
including no specific Condorcet method, since there was a CW.
�
> What you don't know until you try it, is whether voters would
> actually cast those ballots, given the incentives created by the method.
�
well, when at first i (mistakenly) thought that there were only 3 candidates
(or candidate tickets, in this case), i could not see how there would be any
different outcome at all because, even if there
was a cycle, it would be a cycle with 3 in the Smith set.
�
> That said,
> I don't see an obvious reason why Tideman or MinMax would have gone
> differently.
�
well, being that there were 4 candidate tickets, it's *possible* that a cycle
with all 4 tickets in the Smith set occurs and then, i guess, the different
methods: MinMax, Tideman, Schulze may have resulted in different outcomes.
�
i have since discovered that the voting
was online and the results went into a Google spreadsheet doc.� i imagine they
were able to program it to compute the winner and margin of each candidate
pairing, but if a cycle had occurred, i really wonder what they would have
done, because with all due respect to Markus (and i mean that,
Markus, everyone says that Schulze method is the best Condorcet method or, at
least, gets the best outcome in the hypothetical cases where it would be
different from the others), i wonder if they would have some trouble going
through the actual steps of the Schulze method.
�
r
b-j
�
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
