Paul Kislanko <kislanko <at> airmail.net> writes: >> what kind of information is lost when going from ballots to the >> matrix? > The relative positions on ballots compared to the whole field > of alternatives. Alternative A ranked first, and E ranked fifth > is cancelled by an E ranked fourth and A ranked fifth. The > Condorcet methods that translate the Pairwise Matrix into > an ordered list make no distinction based upon voter preferences > as indicated by ballots, since their "raw data" is the > "pre-processed" matrix.
Isn't the fact that Condorcet methods ignore ballot positions relative to the "whole field of alternatives" the whole beauty of what Condorcet methods do? It seems like that is the major selling point of Condorcet: "In the contest between Gore and Bush, we intentionally ignore Gore's position relative to Nader on your ballot. Therefore you can vote sincerely and without punishing the candidate you like that is most likely to win." As soon as you start taking into account positions relative to all alternatives, you have destroyed the "elimination/minimization of strategy" benefit of Condorcet. -rob ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info