From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of John B. Hodges
Sent: Tue 9/13/2005 3:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Condorcet] Plain English description of Schulze(wv)
Jeff Fisher wrote:
>My attempt, slightly more formulaic:
[for Schulze(wv) ]
>
>1. Use voters' rankings to simulate an
instant round-robin of
>head-to-head contests among all candidates in a
race.
>
>2. If one emerges undefeated, then that candidate is
declared the
>winner. Otherwise...
>
>3. Find the
smallest set of candidates whose only defeats are to one
another.
>
>4. Sort the pairings within that set according to
the number of
>votes on the winning side.
>
>5.
Discard/nullify/ignore the result of smallest winning vote and
>go back to
#2.
>
>-- JRF [Jeff Fisher]
(JBH) BRAVO! This is the first
description of the Schulze method that
I've seen, that the averge voter might
finish reading.
My concern has been whether the tie-breaking
(cycle-breaking) method
had intuitive appeal, whether the winner of a
tie-breaker could make
a plausible claim to being the legitimate "people's
choice". The
above description is clear enough, that the claim is weak but
about
as good as one might expect, given that the election is basically
a
tie.
There are many other tie-breakers that might be imagined. Some,
like
having a plurality of first-rank votes, are simpler than the
above.
This is where the technical analysis and long vetting of the
Schulze
method may carry weight with the voters- not in persuading them
to
consider or adopt the method, but to dissuade them from tinkering
with
it. We can say, "Lots of people have already done that, it's
surprisingly
hard to find a tie-breaker that does not have unwanted
side-effects. This one
has been found to do the job
relatively
cleanly."
--
----------------------------------
John B.
Hodges, jbhodges@ @usit.net
Do Justice, Love Mercy, and Be
Irreverent.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info