Talk:Condorcet method
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Nanson's method
Dear Iota, you have added 4 uses of Nanson's method. However, if I understand McLean's paper correctly, then 3 of these 4 uses are out of date. Markus Schulze 09:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The website of the University of Adelaide says that its council is elected by proportional representation by the single transferable vote [1]. Therefore, it seems to me that all four examples for uses of Nanson's method are out of date. Markus Schulze 20:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the examples for the use of Nanson's method. According to McLean's paper, the University of Melbourne abandoned Nanson's method in 1983. According to footnote no. 7 of his paper, also the Anglican diocese of Melbourne abandoned this method. According to the website of the University of Adelaide, its council is elected by proportional representation by the single transferable vote [2]. Markus Schulze 19:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- My bad. I was simply relying on the Nanson's method article. Tend to forget that Wikipedia can be unreliable sometimes. I've just corrected the out of date information in that article too. Iota 03:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Landau set
I've created Landau set -- I thought I'd mention it here since this is the only article I've noticed that links there. Comments are welcome. CRGreathouse (talk • contribs) 06:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the definition of the Landau set in this article is wrong. According to this post, instead of
- the set of candidates, such that each member, for every other candidate (including those inside the set), either beats this candidate or beats a third candidate that itself beats the candidate that is unbeaten by the member.
the definition should be
- the set of candidates, such that each member, for every other candidate (including those inside the set), either beats or ties this candidate, or beats or ties a third candidate that itself beats or ties the other candidate.
The definition in Landau set is also wrong; instead of
- is the set of candidates x such that for every other candidate y, there is some candidate z (possibly the same as x, but distinct from y) such that y is not preferred to x and z is not preferred to y.
it should read
- is the set of candidates x such that for every other candidate y, there is some candidate z (possibly the same as x, but distinct from y) such that z is not preferred to x and y is not preferred to z.
Smoerz 14:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] consistency and participation
Can anyone add an example to illustrate Condorcet fails these, and explain whether or not it is a valid concern? — ChristTrekker 21:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- It has been proven by Hervé Moulin ("Condorcet's Principle Implies the No Show Paradox", Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 45, no. 1 , pp. 53-64, 1988) that the participation criterion and the Condorcet criterion are incompatible. A summary of his proof is here. A short proof that the consistency criterion and the Condorcet criterion are incompatible is here. Markus Schulze 15:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. Maybe I'll try to parse that through my noggin and write up something that the average reader could digest. — ChristTrekker 16:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request for a better introduction
I find this a fascinating subject, but I fear that this article is just a little bit opaque for most people (myself included!) I think the article, as it stands, spends much too much time on minutiae, especially right at the beginning of the article. For example, right from the 2nd sentence starts it starts defining new terms (condorcet winner, condorcet criterion) which really aren't essential to understanding the basic concept.
It may be that it just requires a new paragraph at the start that sets out the following:
- It's a voting system
- It differs from other systems by ranking candidates, instead of just picking the favourite.
- It solves, to some extent, the following problems with other commonly used systems (vote splits, strategic voting, etc)
Once that's done, a more in-depth exploration of the system with examples and all the theory and terminology would be appropriate, but not without giving an overview. Jaddle 02:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I took a shot at it. Shortened and tightened it, splitting some of it into two new sections. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
