> 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
