Condorcet method: Difference between revisions
→Notes
(→Notes) |
(→Notes) |
||
Line 254:
==Connection to cardinal methods ==
See also [[Score voting#Connection to Condorcet methods]]. Essentially, [[Rated method|rated methods]] can be considered one possible parametrization of Condorcet methods.
Score Voting can be thought of as a Condorcet method where a voter is allowed to give a fraction of a vote to a candidate in a pairwise matchup against other candidates, rather than a full vote or nothing. Further, the amount of a vote the voter gives in one runoff directly alters the amount they give in another; if they arrange their scores such that they give 0.4 of a vote to help one candidate beat another, this automatically means they can at best arrange their scores such that they give up to 0.6 of their vote to help the second candidate beat someone else. Assuming a voter would vote the exact same way in a Score Voting runoff between all possible pairs of candidates as they did in the original Score election, Score elects the Condorcet winner using this modified definition.<ref>https://rangevoting.org/CondDQ.html</ref>
Line 279:
Any voting method can be made a Condorcet method by simply adding a condition that a Condorcet winner will win if one exists before running the voting method. It is possible to further make a voting method [[Smith-efficient]] by taking various approaches, such as eliminating candidates one by one until there is a Condorcet winner (like in [[Benham's method]]) or eliminating all candidates not in the [[Smith set]] before running the voting method's procedure. It is common terminology for Condorcet methods that start by electing the Condorcet winner if there is one, but otherwise run some other voting method, to be named as "Condorcet//voting method". For example, [[Condorcet//Score]] is [[Score voting]] modified to elect a CW. The Condorcet methods that start by eliminating all candidates not in a given set of candidates and then run some other voting method are named as "Given set//voting method" (sometimes with only one "/"). For example, [[Smith//IRV]] is [[IRV]] run on the [[Smith set]].
It is possible to do a first round where the [[Smith set]] of candidates is identified, and then a second round where another voting method is used to select among the Smith set (or any set).
For example, [[Smith//Approval]] is the automatic form of doing this with [[Approval voting]].
Line 286 ⟶ 285:
All Condorcet methods pass the [[mutual majority criterion]] when there is a Condorcet winner. This is because the CW is guaranteed to be a member of any set of candidates that can pairwise beat all candidates not in the set, and the mutual majority set is such a set, because all candidates in it are ranked by a majority over all candidates not in the set. [[Smith-efficient]] Condorcet methods always pass the [[mutual majority criterion]].
Most Condorcet methods allow for equal-ranking. Because of this, it is possible to vote [[Approval voting]]-style. In fact, if all voters vote Approval-style, the Smith set will only have candidates who pairwise tie, rather than who have [[Condorcet cycle|Condorcet cycles]].
is mitigates one common utilitarian concern with Condorcet, that it might let a majority force its weak preference onto the minority, because voters with weak preferences may be willing to equally rank candidates in order to allow voters with stronger preferences to have the decvote. iding See als[[KP transform]], which can be used to model transforming cardinal utilities into ranked ballots by making Score ballots into Approval ballots, and then Approval ballots into ranked ballots. vote.
One concern with Condorcet methods is that it is very difficult to do [[pairwise counting]] for elections with 10 of more candidates, since that is at least (0.5*10*((10-1)=9))=45 pairwise matchups to record the details of. Allowing write-in candidates makes things even more complex. One possible solution would be to have a primary beforehand using a voting method better than [[FPTP]] to pick 5 top candidates, and then only allow voters to rank those top 5. For all other candidates, they'd be able to approve or score each of them. The rated information could then be used to elect someone other than one of the top 5 when the non-top 5 candidates have significantly higher ratings, but otherwise only elect one of the top 5. The primary itself could be made slightly semi-proportional as well.
| |||