2012/2/6 Dave Ketchum <da...@clarityconnect.com> > How did we get here? What I see called Condorcet is not really that. > > On Feb 6, 2012, at 10:02 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > ... > > > Say people vote rated ballots with 6 levels, and after the election you > see a histogram of candidate X and Y that looks like this: > > (better) > 6:Y X > 5: Y X > 4: YX > 3: XY > 2: X Y > 1:X Y > (worse) > N:123456789 > > That is, 3 people rated X as 6 and only one person rated them as 1, and > vice versa for Y. > > X wins, right? > > If it's Condorcet, not necessarily. This is consistent with a 14:12 > victory for Y over X. > > > I count 15 vs 6, being that all you can say in Condorcet is X>Y, X=Y, and > X<Y. There being no cycles in this election, I would not expect any > variation among Condorcet methods. Perhaps Jameson was thinking of > something other than Condorcet - consistent with saying "rated" rather than > "ranked"? >
This is not standard notation; I was trying to draw a picture of a histogram, with a distribution for X that is clearly above the distribution for Y. In standard notation, the 14:12 scenario is: 3: X6, Y1 5: X5, Y2 4: X4, Y3 1: Y6, X5 3: Y5, X4 6: Y4, X3 3: Y3, X2 1: Y2, X1 Obviously, X and Y are not the only candidates in this race, or people wouldn't vote like that. > > > If you present the pairwise total, it's "obvious" to people that Y > should win. If you present the histogram, it's at least as "obvious" to > people that X should win. If what people find obvious isn't even consistent > (which even just pairwise isn't, of course; that's why there is more than > one Condorcet system), then you can't elevate "obvious" to an unbreakable > principle. > > ... > >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info