----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Tarr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 9:50 PM Subject: Re: [EM] falsifying voters' rankings--no. > > >We thus have the following ordering: > >(C,V) S > >V S C > >S (V, C) > > Vanilla is the Condorcet winner. Chocolate is the Condorcet loser. No > need to assume preferences among the voted indifferences. Perhaps an > example that truly produces a circular tie would be more illustrative.
True enough. It's possible this method might have no effect, in which case it's a complication (which is better than being a problem I suppose). I'll have to play with the numbers a bit and see. > > Also, your example supposes we can have two winners. Nobody has seriously > advocated the use of Condorcet voting in multi-winner elections. So, for > the sake of applicability, I'd suggest making single-winner examples to > test your idea. The main argument against using Condorcet in multi-winner elections is that a bare majority of voters can force a larger majority of representatives if they vote in a block. On the other hand, using Condorcet in multi-winner district may be a bit more representative than any method using single-representative districts, so there's a tradeoff. > I would advise you take a serious look at your method before you advocate > it strongly. Lots of intuitively appealing ideas actually open the door to > strategic manipulation rather than create more democratic results. > > -Adam It's possible that it would have little or no result in elections -- it very well might be useless. If it does encourage fully-ranked ballots, this would make the overall election less manipulable for each voter. Michael Rouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]