Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Condorcet voting has happened!!!

Expand Messages
  • WarrenS
    So it might appear that Condorcet actually came to believe, near the end of his life, that Condorcet methods were NOT the best voting method (perhaps for
    Message 1 of 9 , Jul 13 1:37 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      So it might appear that Condorcet actually came to believe,
      near the end of his life, that "Condorcet methods" were NOT the best
      voting method (perhaps for reasons of simplicity or strategy),
      and instead he and/or his committee
      invented something much more similar to Bucklin and approval voting.

      Condorcet's draft constitution of Feb. 1793 contained that, and he died in
      March 1794 in prison.
    • Markus Schulze
      Dear Warren, ... Condorcet s last paper on election methods was Sur les Elections (Journal d Instruction Sociale, vol. 1, p. 25-32, 1793). In this paper, he
      Message 2 of 9 , Jul 14 1:26 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Warren,

        you wrote:

        > So it might appear that Condorcet actually came to
        > believe, near the end of his life, that "Condorcet
        > methods" were NOT the best voting method.

        Condorcet's last paper on election methods was
        "Sur les Elections" (Journal d'Instruction Sociale,
        vol. 1, p. 25-32, 1793). In this paper, he proposed
        the following method:

        > A table of majority judgements between the candidates
        > taken two by two would then be formed and the result
        > -- the order of merit in which they are placed by the
        > majority -- extracted from it. If these judgements
        > could not all exist together, then those with the
        > smallest majority would be rejected.

        This is a Condorcet method.

        Markus Schulze
      • WarrenS
        ... --yes, but when he actually was involved in the real world, not merely writing an 8-page paper, he and his constitution-writing committee proposed for
        Message 3 of 9 , Jul 14 5:00 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, Markus Schulze <markus.schulze@...> wrote:
          >
          > Dear Warren,
          >
          > you wrote:
          >
          > > So it might appear that Condorcet actually came to
          > > believe, near the end of his life, that "Condorcet
          > > methods" were NOT the best voting method.
          >
          > Condorcet's last paper on election methods was
          > "Sur les Elections" (Journal d'Instruction Sociale,
          > vol. 1, p. 25-32, 1793). In this paper, he proposed
          > the following method:
          >
          > > A table of majority judgements between the candidates
          > > taken two by two would then be formed and the result
          > > -- the order of merit in which they are placed by the
          > > majority -- extracted from it. If these judgements
          > > could not all exist together, then those with the
          > > smallest majority would be rejected.
          >
          > This is a Condorcet method.
          >
          > Markus Schulze

          --yes, but when he actually was involved in the real world, not merely writing an 8-page paper, he and his constitution-writing committee proposed for France, a Bucklin-like voting method which was not Condorcet. Also Jameson Quinn tells us based on the L'Huilier 1794 paper that Condorcet actually implemented a voting system in Geneva which was also Bucklin-like and not Condorcet. And this all was in that same year 1793.

          Why this discrepancy?

          Perhaps for practical reasons such as simplicity or because they were worried about strategic voting. (I do not know why.) For example if their French constitution method
          had been altered to replace the Bucklin-like method with Condorcet, then the voters would have had to provide 13-candidate rank-orderings, which perhaps was considered impractical/difficult compared with the task of "name your favorite, then name (unordered) your favorite 6 among the remaining 12" --- and/or perhaps it was considered too difficult to count Condorcet ballots compared with the much easier counting task in the proposed system. And (I would guess) that based on some experiments they believed the proposed system would in practice tend to agree with Condorcet voting often. They might have also conducted some experiments to assess strategic voting.

          All in all I am quite impressed with what Condorcet's 1793 committee came up with.
          The parts I read seem better thought through and better written than (say) the USA constitution (1787-1789). Also, they are better written than almost anything else I ever read by Condorcet.

          Also, the "Approval" and "Bucklin" voting methods which normally are not attributed to Condorcet and claimed to be comparatively recent inventions, actually were (to decent approximation anyhow) known to Condorcet's committee!
        • Dale Sheldon-Hess
          Perhaps something to do with his feud with Borda? This Bucklinish thing as a compromise between the two of them? -- Dale ... [Non-text portions of this message
          Message 4 of 9 , Jul 14 5:17 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Perhaps something to do with his feud with Borda? This Bucklinish thing as
            a compromise between the two of them?

            --
            Dale


            On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 4:00 AM, WarrenS <wds@...> wrote:

            > **
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, Markus Schulze <markus.schulze@...>
            > wrote:
            > >
            > > Dear Warren,
            > >
            > > you wrote:
            > >
            > > > So it might appear that Condorcet actually came to
            > > > believe, near the end of his life, that "Condorcet
            > > > methods" were NOT the best voting method.
            > >
            > > Condorcet's last paper on election methods was
            > > "Sur les Elections" (Journal d'Instruction Sociale,
            > > vol. 1, p. 25-32, 1793). In this paper, he proposed
            > > the following method:
            > >
            > > > A table of majority judgements between the candidates
            > > > taken two by two would then be formed and the result
            > > > -- the order of merit in which they are placed by the
            > > > majority -- extracted from it. If these judgements
            > > > could not all exist together, then those with the
            > > > smallest majority would be rejected.
            > >
            > > This is a Condorcet method.
            > >
            > > Markus Schulze
            >
            > --yes, but when he actually was involved in the real world, not merely
            > writing an 8-page paper, he and his constitution-writing committee proposed
            > for France, a Bucklin-like voting method which was not Condorcet. Also
            > Jameson Quinn tells us based on the L'Huilier 1794 paper that Condorcet
            > actually implemented a voting system in Geneva which was also Bucklin-like
            > and not Condorcet. And this all was in that same year 1793.
            >
            > Why this discrepancy?
            >
            > Perhaps for practical reasons such as simplicity or because they were
            > worried about strategic voting. (I do not know why.) For example if their
            > French constitution method
            > had been altered to replace the Bucklin-like method with Condorcet, then
            > the voters would have had to provide 13-candidate rank-orderings, which
            > perhaps was considered impractical/difficult compared with the task of
            > "name your favorite, then name (unordered) your favorite 6 among the
            > remaining 12" --- and/or perhaps it was considered too difficult to count
            > Condorcet ballots compared with the much easier counting task in the
            > proposed system. And (I would guess) that based on some experiments they
            > believed the proposed system would in practice tend to agree with Condorcet
            > voting often. They might have also conducted some experiments to assess
            > strategic voting.
            >
            > All in all I am quite impressed with what Condorcet's 1793 committee came
            > up with.
            > The parts I read seem better thought through and better written than (say)
            > the USA constitution (1787-1789). Also, they are better written than almost
            > anything else I ever read by Condorcet.
            >
            > Also, the "Approval" and "Bucklin" voting methods which normally are not
            > attributed to Condorcet and claimed to be comparatively recent inventions,
            > actually were (to decent approximation anyhow) known to Condorcet's
            > committee!
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • WarrenS
            ... --does not at all seem to be a compromise with Borda (just looking at the voting system alone). Seems more like a third direction. The 8 authors of the
            Message 5 of 9 , Jul 15 6:32 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, Dale Sheldon-Hess <dale@...> wrote:
              >
              > Perhaps something to do with his feud with Borda? This Bucklinish thing as
              > a compromise between the two of them?
              >
              > --
              > Dale

              --does not at all seem to be a compromise with Borda (just looking at the voting system alone). Seems more like a third direction.

              The 8 authors of the 1793 constitution draft were

              1.Condorcet (died 1794)
              2. Armand Gensonne (executed 1793)
              3. Bertrand Barrere (survived until 1841, although imprisoned and deported at various times)
              4. Charles J.M. Barbaroux, (executed 1794)
              5. Thomas Paine (actually an American born in England, author of "common sense" and "the rights of man")
              6. Jerome Petion de Villeneuve (executed 1794)
              7. Pierre V. Vergniaud (executed 1793)
              8. Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes (survived until 1836, coined the word "sociology")

              I do not think any of these 8 were associated with Borda, although Condorcet knew him.
              I also do not think Borda had anything to do with the revolution. He tried to stay out of it.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.