Re: Hybrid Theory
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 02:50:11PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > [b] Gives a result which is less like condorcet than "drop all failed
> > supermajority before CpSSD".
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 03:52:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Uh, how do you figure:
>
> 40 A B D (A requires 3:1 supermajority, D is the default option)
> 20 D B A
>
> which Condorcet would treats as "A wins, B comes second, D comes last", is
> treated "more like Condorcet" by:
>
> D defeats A (60:40) (scaled 3:1)
> A defeats B (40:20)
> B defeats D (40:20)
>
> Drop weakest defeats, leaving D defeats A;
> Hence B and D draw
I'm not sure what you're talking about, here.
Here, the weakest defeats involve A, and A is involved in a superdefeat,
so "Hybrid Theory" would drop A entirely, leaving B and D in the Schwartz
set and leaving the defeat B defeats D. Hence B wins.
> ? If you want a more complicated example, try:
>
> 40 A B C F (A requires 3:1 supermajority, F is the default option)
> 10 C B F A
> 10 F C B A
>
> which Condorcet would rank as A first, B second, C third and F last;
Again: the weakest defeats involve A which is involved in a superdefeat,
so A is dropped entirerly, and B wins.
Or did the "Hybrid Theory" post not express this concept adequately?
--
Raul
Reply to: