On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:51:42 -0400 you wrote: > >> I went thru several thoughts: > >> Did you make up the data? > > > > > > --yes. > > > So I question the quality: > Why is Plurality not going to be neutral, echoing data biases in the > reported results? > Why should Condorcet be blamed if, presented with voters biased > toward Ns, it [produces vote counts biased toward Ns?
--well, the voters were not biased toward Ns - they were biased toward Ys! However, I agree that because this IS made-up data, it may not have a great deal of relevance to the real world. As a matter of principle, though, it seems disturbing that Y-biased voters could elect NNNN. But as a matter of practice, it perhaps is rare enough that it has little impact. > I am not claiming that the presented data could not happen, only that it > does not represent a likely standard pattern. --your claim is plausibly true. > EXCEPT, it looks like selection of a collection of voters with attributes > that wuld make them vote as you desired, rather than a random collection. --definitely true. They were constructed to demonstrate the paradox could happen. I would like to know more about how common this is and how serious it can be and for which voting methods. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info