Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 2/9/12 10:55 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote: On Feb 9, 2012, at 9:02 PM, Kevin Venzke wrote: (Your idea of all the utilities being 0 or 1 can't even be made to work as a model, I don't think, unless voters really only have two stances toward candidates. Because what happens when you introduce a thi

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On Feb 9, 2012, at 9:02 PM, Kevin Venzke wrote: Hi Robert, De : robert bristow-johnson À : election-methods@lists.electorama.com Envoyé le : Jeudi 9 février 2012 10h07 Objet : Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet On 2/8/12 1:25 PM, Juho Laatu wrote: > On 8.2.2012, at 7.33, rob

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

Hi Robert, De : robert bristow-johnson >>À : election-methods@lists.electorama.com >>Envoyé le : Jeudi 9 février 2012 10h07 >>Objet : Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet >> >>On 2/8/12 1:25 PM, Juho Laatu wrote: >>> On 8.2.2012

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 10.2.2012, at 0.59, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > On 2/9/12 5:19 PM, Juho Laatu wrote: >> Condorcet is a natural extension to the multi-candidate case (still assuming >> competitive elections). Maybe not the only one though. In another mail I >> just addressed the possbility of having singl

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 2/9/12 5:19 PM, Juho Laatu wrote: Condorcet is a natural extension to the multi-candidate case (still assuming competitive elections). Maybe not the only one though. In another mail I just addressed the possbility of having single-winner elections that aim at electing the winner from one of

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 9.2.2012, at 18.07, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > On 2/8/12 1:25 PM, Juho Laatu wrote: >> On 8.2.2012, at 7.33, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >> >> ... >>> if it's not the majority that rule, what's the alternative? >> I'm not aware of any good alternatives to majority rule in competitive >

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 2/8/12 1:25 PM, Juho Laatu wrote: On 8.2.2012, at 7.33, robert bristow-johnson wrote: ... if it's not the majority that rule, what's the alternative? I'm not aware of any good alternatives to majority rule in competitive two-candidate elections (with some extra assumptions that rule out ra

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 8.2.2012, at 7.33, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > On 2/7/12 6:30 PM, Juho Laatu wrote: >> On 7.2.2012, at 5.31, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >> >>> how can Clay build a proof where he claims that "it's a proven mathematical >>> fact that the Condorcet winner is not necessarily the option wh

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 2/8/12 5:53 PM, Kevin Venzke wrote: I would +1 to Bryan Mills' post. i still have trouble with all of the contrived assumptions that are made just to avoid coming to a conclusion of "simple majority" vote and "one person, one vote" for a simple 2-candidate or 2-choice election. i was exp

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

Hi Robert,   I would +1 to Bryan Mills' post.   >in the two-candidate case, you would have to assume unequal treatment for >voters   Yes, utility inherently does this. It's trying to maximize "happiness" which is a different ideal from giving everyone equal weight (e.g. even people who don't have

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 12:52 AM, < election-methods-requ...@lists.electorama.com> wrote: > Subject: Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet > Message-ID: <4f320919.8090...@audioimagination.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 2/7/12 2:07 PM, Kevin Venzke wrote: Hi Robert, I think that the basic claim of "Condorcet doesn't necessarily pick the option whom the elecotorate prefers" (in terms of total utility) won't be too controversial. Any kind of model usually assumes internal utilities (such as based on distances

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 2/7/12 6:30 PM, Juho Laatu wrote: On 7.2.2012, at 5.31, robert bristow-johnson wrote: how can Clay build a proof where he claims that "it's a proven mathematical fact that the Condorcet winner is not necessarily the option whom the electorate prefers"? if he is making a utilitarian argume

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 7.2.2012, at 5.31, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > how can Clay build a proof where he claims that "it's a proven mathematical > fact that the Condorcet winner is not necessarily the option whom the > electorate prefers"? if he is making a utilitarian argument, he needs to > define how the

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

electorama.com Envoyé le : Lundi 6 février 2012 21h31 Objet : Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet one thing i forgot to mention... On 2/5/12 5:07 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: > On 02/04/2012 06:14 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: ... > that is not well defined. given

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

2012/2/6 Dave Ketchum > 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: > >

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

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:

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

one thing i forgot to mention... On 2/5/12 5:07 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: On 02/04/2012 06:14 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: ... that is not well defined. given Abd's example: 2: Pepperoni (0.61), Cheese (0.5), Mushroom (0.4) 1: Cheese (0.8), Mushroom (0.7), Pepperoni (0) who

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

2012/2/6 robert bristow-johnson > responding to both Andy and Kristofer... > > On 2/6/12 2:31 PM, Andy Jennings wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:01 PM, robert bristow-johnson < >> r...@audioimagination.com >> > >> wrote: >> >>i really don't want this q

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

responding to both Andy and Kristofer... On 2/6/12 2:31 PM, Andy Jennings wrote: On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:01 PM, robert bristow-johnson mailto:r...@audioimagination.com>> wrote: i really don't want this question distracted too much with "the guys and i are going out for pizza." a lit

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:01 PM, robert bristow-johnson < r...@audioimagination.com> wrote: > i really don't want this question distracted too much with "the guys and i > are going out for pizza." a little bit of distraction was okay, but the > give-and-take relationship with my pizza-and-beer bu

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 02/04/2012 06:14 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: On 2/4/12 4:12 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: On 02/04/2012 06:47 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: On 2/3/12 11:06 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: No, he's saying that when the CW and the true, honest utility winner differ, the latter is bet

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

2012/2/5 Kevin Venzke > > -- > *De :* Jameson Quinn > *À :* electionscie...@googlegroups.com > *Cc :* EM > *Envoyé le :* Vendredi 3 février 2012 22h06 > *Objet :* Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet > > > Condorcet systems

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

De : Jameson Quinn À : electionscie...@googlegroups.com Cc : EM 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 >

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 5.2.2012, at 5.39, Jameson Quinn wrote: > > > With information like this it should be (in principle) a quite mechanical > process to check all relevant available methods against the targets and > environment description, and then pick the best method (and ballot format) > (and guidance to

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 5.2.2012, at 5.34, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > On 2/4/12 4:01 PM, Juho Laatu wrote: >> On 4.2.2012, at 19.14, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >> >>> so, i have a few questions for everyone here: >>> >>>1. do we all agree that every voter's franchise is precisely equal? >>>2. if e

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 2/4/12 10:39 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: With information like this it should be (in principle) a quite mechanical process to check all relevant available methods against the targets and environment description, and then pick the best method (and ballot format)

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

> > > > With information like this it should be (in principle) a quite >> mechanical process to check all relevant available methods against the >> targets and environment description, and then pick the best method (and >> ballot format) (and guidance to the voters on how to vote). >> > > really?

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 2/4/12 4:01 PM, Juho Laatu wrote: On 4.2.2012, at 19.14, robert bristow-johnson wrote: so, i have a few questions for everyone here: 1. do we all agree that every voter's franchise is precisely equal? 2. if each voter's franchise is equal, should we expect any voter that h

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 4.2.2012, at 19.14, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > so, i have a few questions for everyone here: > >1. do we all agree that every voter's franchise is precisely equal? >2. if each voter's franchise is equal, should we expect any voter >that has an opinion regarding the candi

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:14 AM, robert bristow-johnson < r...@audioimagination.com> wrote: > On 2/4/12 4:12 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: > >> On 02/04/2012 06:47 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >> >> On 2/3/12 11:06 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: >>> >>> No, he's saying that when the CW and th

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 2/4/12 4:12 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: On 02/04/2012 06:47 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: On 2/3/12 11:06 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: 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, be

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 4.2.2012, at 11.12, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: > On 02/04/2012 06:47 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > >> On 2/3/12 11:06 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: >> >>> 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 argume

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 02/04/2012 06:47 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: On 2/3/12 11:06 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: 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 thi

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

Clay Shentrup wrote: Condorcet systems fundamentally try to maximize the wrong thing. no. excluding the cases where there are cycles (which is another topic), there is no quantitative metric to be "the wrong thing". Condorcet only imposes a logical consistency that, from a popula

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 th