Re: [EM] An interesting real election
Hi Aaron, --- En date de : Lun 31.1.11, Aaron Armitage a écrit : > > >1 has a path to 6 at least as strong as 6's path > to 1, > > namely 1>3>6, at > > >15-11 and 14-11. It > > >seems a little odd, to me at least, that 6's path > to 1 > > should benefit 2 > > >but not 6 itself. > > > > When you say "benefit" do you mean "elect" or > something > > more broad? It > > seems to me election is the only meaningful benefit > but of > > course only > > one candidate can receive it. > > > > In this context I mean benefit in the pairwise comparison. > So in this > case, using Schulze, 2 receives a pairwise benefit against > 1 from the > direct 6 vs. 1 comparison, but 6 itself (himself, > herself...) does not. > Actually winning office is the main reason why a candidate > would care > about his pairwise comparisons, but not the only one -- > doing well gives > him a stronger platform for future elections, makes him > more attractive to > donors, makes him more likely to be taken seriously, and so > on. Well, in that case I think 6 does benefit from beating 1 surely? Better to be in the Schwartz set than not. > > >Starting from the top seems the only way of > ensuring > > that the path that > > >orders the two > > >candidates relative to each other is the one > which > > actually contributes > > >to the final outcome. > > > > I don't understand this. Are you saying the Schulze > outcome > > in this > > election is an example where these two things > differed? > > > > Well, yes. 6>1 is part of 2's successful path to 1, even > though 1 is > placed over 6 by the 1>3>6 path. That concept of 1 deserving insulation is specific to Tideman though. If "the path that orders the two candidates relative to each other" means the Tideman ranking then certainly you don't have much choice. > > It's true that 1's path to 6 is better than the > reverse, > > but the only > > method that will never elect the loser of such a > comparison > > is Schulze. > > Maybe I'm missing something. I ranked pairs, aren't the > strongest paths > locked in before the weaker ones are considered? That is, > the weakest link > of the weaker path is only considered after all the links > of the better > path are locked in. Yes, that is true. I just took a guess at what you meant. What I was saying is that if the beatpath from A to B is stronger than the beatpath from B to A, then only Schulze will never elect B. Kevin Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] An interesting real election
Sorry for the triple posting. I think it came from a glitch in refreshing the page; I got a message about resending data. --- On Mon, 1/31/11, Aaron Armitage wrote: > From: Aaron Armitage > Subject: Re: [EM] An interesting real election > To: election-meth...@electorama.com, "Kevin Venzke" > Date: Monday, January 31, 2011, 3:56 PM > > > --- On Mon, 1/31/11, Kevin Venzke > wrote: > > > From: Kevin Venzke > > Subject: Re: [EM] An interesting real election > > To: election-meth...@electorama.com > > Date: Monday, January 31, 2011, 12:04 AM > > Hi Aaron, > > > > --- En date de : Dim 30.1.11, Aaron Armitage > > a écrit : > > >1 has a path to 6 at least as strong as 6's path > to 1, > > namely 1>3>6, at > > >15-11 and 14-11. It > > >seems a little odd, to me at least, that 6's path > to 1 > > should benefit 2 > > >but not 6 itself. > > > > When you say "benefit" do you mean "elect" or > something > > more broad? It > > seems to me election is the only meaningful benefit > but of > > course only > > one candidate can receive it. > > > > In this context I mean benefit in the pairwise comparison. > So in this > case, using Schulze, 2 receives a pairwise benefit against > 1 from the > direct 6 vs. 1 comparison, but 6 itself (himself, > herself...) does not. > Actually winning office is the main reason why a candidate > would care > about his pairwise comparisons, but not the only one -- > doing well gives > him a stronger platform for future elections, makes him > more attractive to > donors, makes him more likely to be taken seriously, and so > on. > > > >Starting from the top seems the only way of > ensuring > > that the path that > > >orders the two > > >candidates relative to each other is the one > which > > actually contributes > > >to the final outcome. > > > > I don't understand this. Are you saying the Schulze > outcome > > in this > > election is an example where these two things > differed? > > > > Well, yes. 6>1 is part of 2's successful path to 1, even > though 1 is > placed over 6 by the 1>3>6 path. > > > It's true that 1's path to 6 is better than the > reverse, > > but the only > > method that will never elect the loser of such a > comparison > > is Schulze. > > > > Kevin > > > > Maybe I'm missing something. I ranked pairs, aren't the > strongest paths > locked in before the weaker ones are considered? That is, > the weakest link > of the weaker path is only considered after all the links > of the better > path are locked in. > > > > > > > > > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > > > > > > > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] An interesting real election
--- On Mon, 1/31/11, Kevin Venzke wrote: > From: Kevin Venzke > Subject: Re: [EM] An interesting real election > To: election-meth...@electorama.com > Date: Monday, January 31, 2011, 12:04 AM > Hi Aaron, > > --- En date de : Dim 30.1.11, Aaron Armitage > a écrit : > >1 has a path to 6 at least as strong as 6's path to 1, > namely 1>3>6, at > >15-11 and 14-11. It > >seems a little odd, to me at least, that 6's path to 1 > should benefit 2 > >but not 6 itself. > > When you say "benefit" do you mean "elect" or something > more broad? It > seems to me election is the only meaningful benefit but of > course only > one candidate can receive it. > In this context I mean benefit in the pairwise comparison. So in this case, using Schulze, 2 receives a pairwise benefit against 1 from the direct 6 vs. 1 comparison, but 6 itself (himself, herself...) does not. Actually winning office is the main reason why a candidate would care about his pairwise comparisons, but not the only one -- doing well gives him a stronger platform for future elections, makes him more attractive to donors, makes him more likely to be taken seriously, and so on. > >Starting from the top seems the only way of ensuring > that the path that > >orders the two > >candidates relative to each other is the one which > actually contributes > >to the final outcome. > > I don't understand this. Are you saying the Schulze outcome > in this > election is an example where these two things differed? > Well, yes. 6>1 is part of 2's successful path to 1, even though 1 is placed over 6 by the 1>3>6 path. > It's true that 1's path to 6 is better than the reverse, > but the only > method that will never elect the loser of such a comparison > is Schulze. > > Kevin > Maybe I'm missing something. I ranked pairs, aren't the strongest paths locked in before the weaker ones are considered? That is, the weakest link of the weaker path is only considered after all the links of the better path are locked in. > > > > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] An interesting real election
--- On Mon, 1/31/11, Kevin Venzke wrote: > From: Kevin Venzke > Subject: Re: [EM] An interesting real election > To: election-meth...@electorama.com > Date: Monday, January 31, 2011, 12:04 AM > Hi Aaron, > > --- En date de : Dim 30.1.11, Aaron Armitage > a écrit : > >1 has a path to 6 at least as strong as 6's path to 1, > namely 1>3>6, at > >15-11 and 14-11. It > >seems a little odd, to me at least, that 6's path to 1 > should benefit 2 > >but not 6 itself. > > When you say "benefit" do you mean "elect" or something > more broad? It > seems to me election is the only meaningful benefit but of > course only > one candidate can receive it. > In this context I mean benefit in the pairwise comparison. So in this case, using Schulze, 2 receives a pairwise benefit against 1 from the direct 6 vs. 1 comparison, but 6 itself (himself, herself...) does not. Actually winning office is the main reason why a candidate would care about his pairwise comparisons, but not the only one -- doing well gives him a stronger platform for future elections, makes him more attractive to donors, makes him more likely to be taken seriously, and so on. > >Starting from the top seems the only way of ensuring > that the path that > >orders the two > >candidates relative to each other is the one which > actually contributes > >to the final outcome. > > I don't understand this. Are you saying the Schulze outcome > in this > election is an example where these two things differed? > Well, yes. 6>1 is part of 2's successful path to 1, even though 1 is placed over 6 by the 1>3>6 path. > It's true that 1's path to 6 is better than the reverse, > but the only > method that will never elect the loser of such a comparison > is Schulze. > > Kevin > Maybe I'm missing something. I ranked pairs, aren't the strongest paths locked in before the weaker ones are considered? That is, the weakest link of the weaker path is only considered after all the links of the better path are locked in. > > > > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] An interesting real election
--- On Mon, 1/31/11, Markus Schulze wrote: > From: Markus Schulze > Subject: Re: [EM] An interesting real election > To: election-meth...@electorama.com > Date: Monday, January 31, 2011, 5:29 AM > Dear Andrew, > > you wrote (31 January 2011): > > > Notice that if someone now votes 2 > 1 > 6, > > the Schulze method picks 1 over 2, which is > > the opposite of what the new voter wanted. > > Well, the Condorcet criterion and the participation > criterion are incompatible with each other. > > Markus Schulze > But it should matter how often paradoxical events like that occur. As someone who favors ranked pairs I hope it does relatively well, but I really have no idea. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] An interesting real election
--- On Mon, 1/31/11, Kevin Venzke wrote: > From: Kevin Venzke > Subject: Re: [EM] An interesting real election > To: election-meth...@electorama.com > Date: Monday, January 31, 2011, 12:04 AM > Hi Aaron, > > --- En date de : Dim 30.1.11, Aaron Armitage > a écrit : > >1 has a path to 6 at least as strong as 6's path to 1, > namely 1>3>6, at > >15-11 and 14-11. It > >seems a little odd, to me at least, that 6's path to 1 > should benefit 2 > >but not 6 itself. > > When you say "benefit" do you mean "elect" or something > more broad? It > seems to me election is the only meaningful benefit but of > course only > one candidate can receive it. > In this context I mean benefit in the pairwise comparison. So in this case, using Schulze, 2 receives a pairwise benefit against 1 from the direct 6 vs. 1 comparison, but 6 itself (himself, herself...) does not. Actually winning office is the main reason why a candidate would care about his pairwise comparisons, but not the only one -- doing well gives him a stronger platform for future elections, makes him more attractive to donors, makes him more likely to be taken seriously, and so on. > >Starting from the top seems the only way of ensuring > that the path that > >orders the two > >candidates relative to each other is the one which > actually contributes > >to the final outcome. > > I don't understand this. Are you saying the Schulze outcome > in this > election is an example where these two things differed? > Well, yes. 6>1 is part of 2's successful path to 1, even though 1 is placed over 6 by the 1>3>6 path. > It's true that 1's path to 6 is better than the reverse, > but the only > method that will never elect the loser of such a comparison > is Schulze. > > Kevin > Maybe I'm missing something. I ranked pairs, aren't the strongest paths locked in before the weaker ones are considered? That is, the weakest link of the weaker path is only considered after all the links of the better path are locked in. > > > > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] An interesting real election
Dear Andrew, you wrote (31 January 2011): > Notice that if someone now votes 2 > 1 > 6, > the Schulze method picks 1 over 2, which is > the opposite of what the new voter wanted. Well, the Condorcet criterion and the participation criterion are incompatible with each other. Markus Schulze Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
