Alex Small wrote: > Dave Ketchum said: > > 9045? I see counts for A>B and B>A as separate tallies. > > Good point. I forgot about equal rankings necessitating such separate > tallies.
This part confuses me. I assume this is the same as counting an equal ranking as "half a vote for each", which has come up a lot, when I always thought of an equal ranking as simply not changing anything between the two candidates.
"Half a vote for each" does not change anything if you are using margins. It does potentially change things if you are using winning votes.
Since most Condorcet methods I'm familiar with use margins, there is no need to keep separate tallies - so separate tallies are "necessitated" only for Winning Votes methods, right?
Right; winning votes uses twice as much information. You are aware that ranked pairs and beatpath can use either margins OR winning votes, right?
> More important is that Donald tried to imply the ballot would have > separate slots for the 9,045 pairwise contests, in which case the ballots > would be thicker than encyclopedias. In fact it would just be a standard > ranked ballot.
I've encountered people who have heard of Condorcet but are scared off because they think the voter has to vote explicitly in each pairwise contest. Is this just misinterpretation, or deliberate FUD by IRV supporters?
In most cases, it would probably just be misinterpretation. The majority of IRV supporters don't even know Condorcet exists, after all. I'm never quite sure how much of Donald's rhetoric is sincere, though.
-Adam
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
