- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - April 24 1997 Dear Hugh Tobin and List members, Hugh Tobin wrote: >Condorcet does not require "transfer" of any votes. Don writes: In order for a candidate to win a pairwise race that candidate must receive votes from the candidates that are not one of the pair and not in the pairwise race. I say each pairwise race is one run-off race and that the votes are transferred from the candidates not in the pair to the two candidates of the pair. If we do not like the word transfer - then maybe the word reassign is more suitable - but somehow the votes get moved to the pair candidates. See prior posts of Steve Eppley who defined pairing as a series of run-offs. Pairing looks like a run-off - it acts like a run-off - it must be a run-off. Hugh Tobin wrote: >The Condorcet winner is the one that wins each of >his or her pairwise races (not a "majority"). Don writes: I stand corrected - I will make this change in my description of Condorcet - but my critique of Condorcet for now stays the same - Condorcet should not be used in a real election - keep it as a parlor game if you must. Hugh Tobin wrote: >If nobody wins on that basis, there is a tiebreak. The >tiebreak methods I have seen do not depend on the number of pairwise >wins, and would not be decisive if they did. Least total against in >worst loss has been popular on this list; Don writes: Thank you Hugh for posting this - I often wondered how Condorcet solved ties - even after being on this list for more than a year I never knew - thank you again - I gained from this exchange. Hugh Tobin wrote: > I believe Condorcet intended least absolute margin(s) of defeat. Don writes: What does "least absolute margin of defeat" mean? How do you define a margin? Is a margin the difference between the two candidates in a pairing? Do you then total up all the margins of defeats of each candidate and the winner is the one with the smallest total of defeats? So many questions - so few answers. Regards, Don Donald Eric Davison of New Democracy at http://www.mich.com/~donald - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
