MSC reply

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

MSC reply

Craig Carey-2
Regarding
Subj:  Re: [EM] Multiple Same Choices
Date:  Tue, Feb 27, 1996 7:10 AM EDT
From: [hidden email] (Mike Ossipoff)

My response--
A. The values in the Multiple Same Choices posting are choices of levels, not
points. For example if there were 100 candidates a voter could have 30, 40,
50, 99 or 100 choices of levels.

B. With just 3 candidates (with 2 of them being "extremists") a "middle"
voter has some elementary strategic voting to do for his/her second choice
(who might be a minus 99.9 percent choice versus a minus 100 percent choice)
as shown in my posting of
Subj:  [ER] Single Winners- Condorcet versus Approval
Date:  Fri, Feb 16, 1996 4:22 AM EDT
involving the Hitler-Stalin-Middle example.

Does Mr. Condorcet say that a voter cannot have 2 or more equal first (or
later) choices ? If so, Mr. Condorcet is anti-freedom of choice.

C. The test winner, test loser and test other losers terminology is the same
as what the Condorcet method does in making pair comparisons- one of the pair
is a test winner, one is a test loser. The first choice votes for each of the
pair and the votes transferred from the other first choice candidates (test
other losers) for one of the pair determines which of the pair is a relative
winner. Saying that the Condorcet method compares the votes each of two
candidates receives as if there were only those two candidates may be good
enough for speaking to folks but not for math examples on paper and election
computer programmers.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

MSC reply

Craig Carey-2
On Wed, 28 Feb 1996 [hidden email] wrote:
> B. With just 3 candidates (with 2 of them being "extremists") a "middle"
> voter has some elementary strategic voting to do for his/her second choice
> (who might be a minus 99.9 percent choice versus a minus 100 percent choice)
> as shown in my posting of

They don't have to rank anyone as their second choice, unless they prefer
one extremist to the other.

> C. The test winner, test loser and test other losers terminology is the same
> as what the Condorcet method does in making pair comparisons- one of the pair
> is a test winner, one is a test loser. The first choice votes for each of the
> pair and the votes transferred from the other first choice candidates (test
> other losers) for one of the pair determines which of the pair is a relative
> winner. Saying that the Condorcet method compares the votes each of two
> candidates receives as if there were only those two candidates may be good
> enough for speaking to folks but not for math examples on paper and election
> computer programmers.

*I* am a computer programmer.  I wrote a program that calculates the
Condorcet winner.  I graduated with a mathematics minor, as well, so I
can tell you you are wrong on two counts.  This test winner, test loser,
test other loser terminology is confusing and unnecessary.  It is totally
possible to write a computer program based on Mike's correct analysis
that you only need to compare the pairwise results.  I have done it, and
judging from Lucien's paper, Lucien did it as well.

I would ask that any examples from now on be examples that can be entered
into mine or Lucien's or somebody's program for calculating Condorcet
winners.  Feel free to write your own program that uses TW TL TOL
notation, but please give us a tool to understand this.  Your examples
are almost totally obfuscated by your notation, and many people I'm sure
don't have the patience to wade through them, nor the tools to interpret
them.

Thank you.

Rob Lanphier
[hidden email]
http://www.eskimo.com/~robla


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

MSC reply

Craig Carey-2
In reply to this post by Craig Carey-2
[hidden email] writes:

>
> Regarding
> Subj:  Re: [EM] Multiple Same Choices
> Date:  Tue, Feb 27, 1996 7:10 AM EDT
> From: [hidden email] (Mike Ossipoff)
>
> My response--
> A. The values in the Multiple Same Choices posting are choices of levels, not
> points. For example if there were 100 candidates a voter could have 30, 40,
> 50, 99 or 100 choices of levels.

There's nothing about the definition of Condorcet's method for counting
ranked ballots that prevents those ballots from having more than 1
candidate at any rank position.

>
> B. With just 3 candidates (with 2 of them being "extremists") a "middle"
> voter has some elementary strategic voting to do for his/her second choice
> (who might be a minus 99.9 percent choice versus a minus 100 percent choice)
> as shown in my posting of

Which method are you referring to? With the methods you've been proposing,
defensive strategic voting would indeed be necessary, as I've been saying.

> Subj:  [ER] Single Winners- Condorcet versus Approval
> Date:  Fri, Feb 16, 1996 4:22 AM EDT
> involving the Hitler-Stalin-Middle example.
>
> Does Mr. Condorcet say that a voter cannot have 2 or more equal first (or
> later) choices ? If so, Mr. Condorcet is anti-freedom of choice.

No, I don't know of Monsieur Condorcet ever having said that. And,
as I said, there's nothing about his ballot-counting rule that
prevents you from listing as many candidates as you want at any rank
position. If you list A & B in 1st place, then, by the Condorcet count
rules that I've stated, you aren't counted as ranking A over B or B
over A, but you're counted as ranking both over C. No one is trying to
take away your freedom. On the contrary, the methods that you've proposed
take away the voter's freedom to have all of his preferences counted fully.

Having said that, I should add that, with Condorcet's method, though you
can rank as many 1st (or Nth) choices as you want to, there's no strategic
need to rank them equal unless you really consider several candidates to
be exactly equal and are unable to choose which to rank over the other.
When, as is usually the case, you have a preference between A & B,
you have no reason not to express that preference with Condorcet's method.

>
> C. The test winner, test loser and test other losers terminology is the same
> as what the Condorcet method does in making pair comparisons- one of the pair
> is a test winner, one is a test loser. The first choice votes for each of the
> pair and the votes transferred from the other first choice candidates (test
> other losers) for one of the pair determines which of the pair is a relative
> winner. Saying that the Condorcet method compares the votes each of two
> candidates receives as if there were only those two candidates may be good
> enough for speaking to folks but not for math examples on paper and election
> computer programmers.

Not at all. Saying: "A beats B if more voters rank A over B than vice-
versa" translates in an easy & obvious way to a mathematical example or
a computer program. The wording based on "test winners", "test losers"
& "test other losers" is unnecessarily wordy & roundabout, as is its
unnecessary use of vote transfers.

> .-
>


--