Looking at the case where two voters see two candidates as about equally desirable: If one votes A>B, and the other B>A, we count '1' in each of the two preferences. But, in Condorcet, both could vote A=B: I have proposed giving the same count as above for, essentially, the same desires. I got rejected on EM, the objectors claiming there should be no counts for equals. Now you refer me to a claim that the count should be twice what it would be for A>B plus B>A.
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:07:50 +0200 Juho wrote: > On Dec 18, 2006, at 8:31 , Dave Ketchum wrote: > > >>How did we get here? >> >>You talk of a method in which ONE voter can say BOTH A>B AND B>A. >> > > Yes, either in the sense that both lose to each others or in the > sense that both win each others. > You make me think of finding people such as: A says "Beer is as good as ale" - probably possible. B says "Beer is better than ale" AND "Ale is better than beer" - what kind of person would combine these two statements, and what useful meaning might we extract from such? Remember that my words did not include "A=B", something that is permitted in Condorcet. > >>Assuming such a method could claim useful value to justify the >>headaches of implementing it and making it understood, I have seen >>nothing to suggest Condorcet might have such an ability. > > > See e.g. http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Tied_at_the_top_rule. > Got us nowhere, for its topic is A=B. > The reason I discussed this possibility is the fact that it frees the > voter from creating an artificial loop and deciding in which > direction it should run. > Leaves me puzzled as to what such a loop might be, and how it might have a positive value. > >> In Condorcet the sum of all the ballots in an election can be a >>combination of some voters voting each preference in a way to, >>collectively, create a cycle - a problem to solve but not a feature >>to brag about. >> > > Agreed. The tied at top/bottom rules are tricks that may relieve this > a bit. (Their other characteristics would need to be discussed more > to tell if they are good or bad in general.) > > >>You also use the word "loops" in a manner I do not understand. >> > > I don't know how but I think I referred to artificial intentionally > generated circular preferences every time. > > Juho Laatu -- [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