User:RobLa/Burlington2009: Difference between revisions

I sorta corrected your definition of the Condorcet criterion. We don't know for sure that we elect candidate A over a third candidate C. But we know that we don't elect B.
(Starting interview with rbj)
(I sorta corrected your definition of the Condorcet criterion. We don't know for sure that we elect candidate A over a third candidate C. But we know that we don't elect B.)
Line 4:
* [[Condorcet criterion]] - this was the indisputable failure of [[instant-runoff voting]] in that election
 
The Condorcet criterion is not ''that'' hard to explain. In short, if a simple majority of voters prefer candidate A over candidate B (and express that preference on their ballots), then candidate AB should beatnot candidatebe Belected.
 
As readers of Electowiki know, I'm Rob Lanphier, aka [[User:RobLa]]. I'm planning to iteratively publish an email interview with Robert Bristow-Johnson on this page. Robert is an electoral reform activist, and has been a longtime member of the [[Election-methods mailing list]] ("[[EM list]]"). Robert's first message in October 2009 ([http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com//2009-October/122858.html a response to Michael Rouse's "new method/request for voting paradoxes" thread]), and he's been continuously active since then. In fact, recently, he engaged in a conversation with [http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2020-April/thread.html#2523 a conversation with Kristofer Munsterhjelm about "Linear summability"] , which is what inspired me to start this interview.
Anonymous user