On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 21:15:01 +0200 (CEST) Kevin Venzke wrote:
Dave,
--- Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit :
I want this to read this way:I lost track of the original context, but it SHOULD have been Condorcet, for which I wrote what I CLAIM should be true, NOT Kevin's different assumption.
I imagine something like an A>B>C>A cycle, where **B>C** is the weakest defeat, so that
C is the winner. In Winning Votes, it's possible that if equal numbers of A>B and B>A voters change their ranking to A=B, then A>B will be the weakest defeat, and **B** will be
elected.
What I was doing was explaining how Winning Votes can treat A>B B>A differently from two copies of A=B, and trying to argue that this is defensible behavior.
I see. I wasn't sure if you were still advocating a Margins/Winning Votes hybrid, or if you had decided to only advocate Margins.
I get dizzy on this, but wv sounds better to me.
It sounds better to me, too. However, since WV does not count votes to either candidate in the case of equal ranking, the following isn't the case:
If two voters rank A=B, the effect should be the same as if one ranked A>B and the other ranked B>A.
If you want this behavior then you have to use Margins.
Sez WHO?
My point is that, if we continue to debate whether to use wv, margins, etc., we properly debate details of each.
Kevin Venzke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] people.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
