Condorcet analysis of Official PEP308 Ballots

Manuel Garcia news at manuelmgarcia.com
Tue Mar 11 19:22:49 CET 2003


On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:59:08 +0100, "Anders J. Munch"
<andersjm at dancontrol.dk> wrote:

>"Norman Petry" <npetry at accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> http://24.72.22.210/pep308ballots.html
>> 
>> The Condorcet results for this set of ballots are shown at the end of
>> this message.
>
>Interesting ... but unfortunately the premise for the Condorcet method
>is not met.  Since voters haven't ranked the candidates in order of
>preference you cannot really say to have found the Condorcet results.
>
>- Anders
>

Of course you are absolutely correct, but I think Norman was perfectly
clear in his subject line "Condorcet analysis of Official PEP308
Ballots".  He had the code written already from his complementary
vote, and then performed the analysis on the raw official votes, after
doing a straightforward translation of the official votes into a
"Condorcet-like" ranking.

So the methods of Condorcet voting were simply used as an analysis
technique, and I think he tried to make that clear.

Manuel




More information about the Python-list mailing list