What is a "strong" Condorcet method? Juho
On 29.9.2012, at 23.11, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: > On 09/28/2012 10:11 PM, dn...@aol.com wrote: >> A > B >> >> Choice C comes along. >> >> C may - head to head --- >> >> 1. Beat both >> C > A >> C > B >> 2. Lose to both >> A > C >> B > C >> 3. Beat A ---- BUT lose to B >> C > A > B > C >> >> Thus, obviously, a tiebreaker is needed in case 3. >> Obviously perhaps Approval. >> >> i.e. BOTH number votes and YES/NO Approval votes. >> >> Obviously much more complex with 4 or more choices. >> --- >> ANY election reform method in the U.S.A. has to get past the math >> challeged appointed folks in SCOTUS. >> >> i.e. ANY reform must be REALLY SIMPLE. >> -------- >> Condorcet applies for legislative bodies and single or multiple >> executive/judicial offices. > > I think Ranked Pairs is the simplest "strong" Condorcet method. You sort the > pairwise victories so that the strongest comes first, then you go down the > list, adding that victory to the final order unless it would contradict > something you added earlier. > > So say you have > > 100 voters prefer A to B > 80 voters prefer B to C > 85 voters prefer C to A > > which would give you: > > First the result must place A higher than B. (Okay.) > Second, the result must place C higher than A. (Okay.) > Third, the result must place B higher than C... but that's impossible because > C is higher than A is higher than B. So skip it. > > And the winner is thus C. A comes second, and B third. > > - > > On the other hand, Schulze is being used more widely, so it's a question of > what will be more persuasive: saying "this thing is simple", or "this thing > is used lots of places". > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
