Hi Warren, I'm interested in Range Voting, since it appears to be popular among many electoral reform advocates here. However, being a Condorcet partisan myself, I'm having a hard time getting through the Range v. Condorcet page here:
>From the site: > A "Condorcet method" is any voting method that obeys the "Condorcet > property" that it always elects a "beats-all-winner" if one exists. A > "beats-all-winner" is a candidate who would beat every other candidate > in the two-choice head-to-head election got be erasing every other > candidate from all votes. > > Well, according to that definition, Range Voting is a Condorcet > method, since if you erase all candidates and all numerical votes for > them in all range votes - except for two candidates A and B - then A > will beat B in the resulting 2-choice election if and only if he beat > B in the original election. Because erasing the votes for the others > has no effect on A and B's individual totals. Here's a counterexample: 41 ballots: A:10 B:3 C:0 (Ranked equiv: A>B>C) 10 ballots: A:5 B:10 C:0 (Ranked equiv: B>A>C) 10 ballots: A:0 B:10 C:5 (Ranked equiv: B>C>A) 39 ballots: A:0 B:3 C:10 (Ranked equiv: C>B>A) Range Voting result: A:460 B:440 C:440 Condorcet winner: B B beats A: 59-41 B beats C: 61-39 A beats C: 61-39 Running the "erase the candidate" filter over this election doesn't change the fact that A beats B in a Range election, even though B is the Condorcet winner by a clear margin. Rob ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info