On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 01:06:48 -0700 Steve Eppley wrote:
Dave K wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:29:48 -0700 Steve Eppley wrote:
-snip-
Another positive argument for Condorcet-consistency uses the single-elimination pairwise voting procedure recommended by Robert's Rules,
-snip-
Most of the people reading this, I assume, are aware that under the Robert's Rules procedure, the Condorcet winner (when there is one) will be chosen, assuming either that every voter votes sincerely or that every voter is strategically sophisticated and knows the preferences of all the voters.
HUH??? The Robert's example is IRV.
AND, they express dislike for Condorcet by their example voting procedure for preferential voting - the procedure shared by IRV and Condorcet.
-snip-
No, I wasn't referring to the Robert's Rules IRV example
of "preferential voting" that they reluctantly recommend when the members are scattered, as in a mail-in vote
(when better methods are impractical, or so they thought
when that section was written long ago). I was referring to their main method, recommended for use when the members are assembled together and hence it's practical
to use a method that requires multiple rounds of voting. This method is sometimes called "agenda voting" and sometimes called "sequential pairwise voting." It
doesn't ask the voters to express orders of preference.
And it's like a single-elimination tournament, not a round-robin tournament.
Please tell me exactly where they, inconsistently, express approval for Condorcet.
What I see is repeated balloting of the entire question - not even deletion of weakest candidates, as would earn the label "runoff".
Here's a simple example: Someone proposes a bill and someone else proposes an amended version of the bill. In the first round of voting, those two alternatives would be pitted against each other. The loser of that vote would be eliminated. The winner of that vote would go on to the next round of voting, a vote between it and the status quo.
This example is not Condorcet - in Condorcet all the versions of the bill would contend in a single election.
--Steve
-- [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
