As the subject indicates, the topic is Approval vs Condorcet.
To Mike O: How did we get here?
To RBJ: Thanks for clarifications.
On Apr 29, 2012, at 12:47 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
...
On Apr 28, 2012, at 5:04 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
....
For one thing, Condorcet discourages honesty,
this is just stupid.
because, even if you
top-rank Compromise, top-ranking Favorite too can cause Compromise
to
lose to Worse.
as long as Compromise is ranked above Worse, it doesn't matter what
you do to Favorite, you are not affecting your contribution to
Compromise's position with respect to Worse's position (your vote
increases Compomise's lead over Worse or decreases Worse's lead over
Compromise).
....when ranking Compromise _alone_ in 1st place would
have defeated Worse. To do your best to defeat Worse, you have to
vote
Favorite below Compromise.
baloney. unless you're assuming some kind of pathological cycle is
to happen. and i don't accept that cycles are anywhere close to
common.
You have to say with your vote that
Condorcet is better than Favorite.
???
you mean "Compromise is better than Favorite."?
if that is what you meant to say, then i say you are mistaken.
Consider that before you criticize
Approval for not letting you vote Favorite over a needed compromise.
What is going on here?
I properly have to rank Favorite above Compromise. Exactly how can
this
fail?
i am still unimpressed with Mike O's analysis if this is what it
is. maybe i should un-plonk him, but i dunno why.
--
r b-j r...@audioimagination.com
Dave Ketchum
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
