> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:07:12 -0800 > From: Rob Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [EM] Displaying intermediate results in Condorcet-based > elections
> >You just don't want a lot of after-the-fact > >questions like "How could Sally have lost? She was 'ahead' by 30 points > >yesterday...." > However, if Condorcet-based systems were really so erratic and > unstable that this effect became extremely pronounced, I don't think > I'd want to use Condorcet. Luckily I just don't think this is the case. >From what I can tell, I think Condorcet methods can be "erratic". The best way I can illustrate this is by using Kemeny-Young. I can imagine the following being the top-most Kemeny-Young scores: 134 A<B<C<D<E 130 C<A<D<E<B 122 E<D<A<B<C The difference between the scores is not very large. However, there are "major" differences between the three permutations. This could happen if the voters have extremely mixed feelings. This is a bit like the computing phrase "garbage in, garbage out." OK. Really I should give a concrete example. The above is just something 'random.' However, on the other side, there was mention on the list about the results of the Free State Project vote recently. Apparently, the results were extremely "consistent"! This post leads me to think about two more problems with the Condorcet-to-Scalar method that I mentioned in a previous post. I might post about it tomorrow, unless anybody gets there first... Thanks, Gervase. ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info