I am seeing statements in this thread that are NOT what I expected!
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 15:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Alex Small wrote:
Adam Tarr said:
Well, since Condorcet is (to the best of my knowledge) never used in public elections and rarely used in private groups, I don't know whether the 0.5 votes each is a standard convention or not. It wouldn't change the margins, so it would be applicable to margins methods. Certainly it would be necessary for winning votes methods.
No, absolutely not. When you add half-votes, the results for winning votes become identical to margins. The whole point of winning votes is you only count the votes FOR the candidate in a pairwise contest.
Poor phrasing on my part. The "it" was the keeping of separate A>B and B>A tallies. I was replying to a reply to a message, and my use of pronouns was sloppy. I agree with your assessment that treating equal rankings as half votes would be equivalent to margins. I don't want a margins vs. winning votes debate either.
Suppose two voters vote A=B:
If margins is the difference in their backing, it matters not whether these votes are counted or not.
If winning votes is the count of whichever of these has the most backing (A or B), as compared with other pairs, then counting 1 for A>B and 1 for B>A displays the same interest as if these two votes were actually A>B and B>A.
Maybe there's also a strategic advantage from intransitive rankings, and Donald wants voters to have access to that option by allowing them to vote A>B, B>C, C>A.
Well, I don't think that's what Donald wants. Moreover, it seems absurd to give an individual voter the ability to submit an ambiguous ballot. Cyclic ties can make sense for an electorate, but they can't make sense for a sane individual.
No, that's probably not what Donald wants, but I was giving as much benefit of the doubt as possible.
First I have heard of voters seeing anything different between IRV and Condorcet ballots - the strategy discussions are about how you choose to vote.
I have written based on the assumption that they are identical, and do not remember anyone correcting me.
Nor can I imagine a voting method that demanded voting pair by pair ever selling or being useful.
Alex
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026 Do to no one what you would not want done to you. If you want peace, work for justice.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
