I mentioned that not only because of Dr. Tideman's study, but also because at least one definition I read (on this list) described a voting method as a mapping of ballots to results.
That many different sets of ballots can result in the same pairwise matrix is something that could be perceived as a problem. In many of the examples I've seen, I'd have chosen a different winner than one of the cycle-breaking methods does based upon the specific the ballot configuration - which is not available to any method that starts counting after the pairwise matrix is formed. I don't mean to argue for or against any method, I just pointed out that this is something that can't be explained away, and some people won't like it. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ] On Behalf Of Eric Gorr > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 4:25 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [EM] Condorcet complicated? > > At 2:14 PM -0700 10/14/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >I've never heard of anyone wanting to take results and map > them back to > >ballots. > > There has been at least one study by Dr. Tideman which did > exactly this. > > It can be a useful thing as long as people take into account > the fact that there can be many sets of ballots which are > capable of producing the same pairwise matrix. > > -- > == Eric Gorr ========= http://www.ericgorr.net ========= > ICQ:9293199 === "Therefore the considerations of the > intelligent always include both benefit and harm." - Sun Tzu > == Insults, like violence, are the last refuge of the > incompetent... === > ---- > Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em > for list info > ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info