On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:35:19 -0700 Rob Lanphier wrote:
On Sat, 2005-08-13 at 19:13 -0500, Paul Kislanko wrote:
"Shortest computer program" is not a criterion that any voter would care
about.
"Rules for voters" and "specification for counting programs" are two
different things.
In fairness, the specification for counting votes is something that
voters will probably care about, and it is one of the biggest
liabilities of Condorcet. Part of the uphill battle for Condorcet
advocates is to convince people that even if they don't understand
exactly how it works, it's still a better system (the tactic I've
usually advocated is endorsement from trusted smart people).
Seems to me that the above unreasonably penalizes Condorcet.
We care not how complex the implementation of the counting program may be,
so long as it does its task in reasonable time and reasonable expense AND
that what it accomplishes is describable to voters.
Mostly this program is counting the pairs, to declare the best of all to
be winner.
When there is a near tie there is more effort, but major voter concern is
that we only get here on true near ties, and resolve such based on the
votes, and not some human's preference.
"endorsement from trusted smart people" is NOT something we should claim.
We SHOULD have a description of what the counting does that is both true
and understandable without depending on some nonbelievable claim of
trustworthiness.
The rules for voters are much simpler for Condorcet than under Range.
Under Range, failure to employ some counterintuitive strategies will
lead to a weakening of your vote (i.e. you should pretend it's
approval). Under Condorcet, sincerity is almost always optimal, which
is tough to beat from a simplicity standpoint.
These words please me more.
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
] On Behalf Of Warren Smith
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 6:58 PM
To: election-methods-electorama.com@electorama.com
Subject: [EM] simplcity of range v condorcet
It was recently claimed on EM that condorcet had "simpler rules" than
range. I dispute that. I challenge people to write computer
programs to perform condorcet and range elections. I have so
far never encountered anybody who produced a shorter program
for condorcet.
Not even close.
For any condorcet method whatever, but espcially for some of the
fancier ones.
wds
--
[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
