Condorcet Voting Method
 

In another thread, I mentioned the Condorcet method of voting. Has anyone ever looked into this? From what I've read, this seems to be the best preferential voting system out there. I know IRV is more popular, but Condorcet seems to have fewer problems and be more "fair".

Here's an example of how the Condorcet system would work:

Three candidates, (A,B,C), and 100 voters. Instead of just picking their "first choice" (like we do currently), we ask them to rank their choices. Here are the results:

30:A>B>C
10:A>C>B
05:B>A>C
20:B>C>A
10:C>A>B
25:C>B>A

(ie: 30 people like A first, B second, and C last)

Then, you set up pair-wise "virtual elections" to see which candidate would be undefeated when paired against the other candidates. In this case, the results would be:

If A & B run, there is a 50/50 tie.
If B & C run, B wins with 55% of the vote.
If A & C run, C wins with 55% of the vote.

So, B beats C, C beats A, and A ties with B (note, I could have actually made it so that A beats B but with less [than 55] votes, 51 for instance).

B is the only candidate that is undefeated. When paired with each of the other candidates, B never loses. In this case, B would win using the Condorcet system, but A would have won using our current system.

I like it. What do you all think?

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

[ QUOTE ]


I like it. What do you all think?



[/ QUOTE ]

Your opinion, fellow voter, just doesn't matter when it comes to Washington figuring out how to run elections. Or finance them.

Any system which, in the opinion of the hoi polloi (me and you), might bring about sensible change in who gets in and who goes home (from DC), simply will not even get into a committee. Much less reach a vote. Sorry. It's just the way it works.

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

In our two party system I don't think this would make much of a difference.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

I really doubt that there would ever be a situation where it would be important to rank my relative preference for the Constitution Party, the Reform Party, the Greens, the Free Soil Party, and the Legalize Marijuana Now Party.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

[ QUOTE ]
I really doubt that there would ever be a situation where it would be important to rank my relative preference for the Constitution Party, the Reform Party, the Greens, the Free Soil Party, and the Legalize Marijuana Now Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this system were in use in 2000 i guarentee Gore would have won the election. All the Nader voters could have selected Gore with their second (or any choice above Bush) choice propelling him ahead of Bush in the head to head match up in Florida. This system is great because it would no longer punish people for voting for a 3rd party by harming their preferred major party. It would strike a serious blow against the "lesser of two evils" philosophy that I beleive is largely responsible for the simultaneous shittiness and predominance of the two major parties.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

Well, duh. OP was talking about how Condorcet was superior to instant runoff. You really only need to indicate your top two choices.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, duh. OP was talking about how Condorcet was superior to instant runoff. You really only need to indicate your top two choices.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was talking about both, I suppose. How a preferential system is better than our current system, and how Condorcet seems to be the better than IRV. You only need your top two choices, if there are only 3 parties (or if you only prefer 2 of the candidates). But, as someone else pointed out (in different words), a change in national voting methods would be pretty hard to do. So, if you're going to do it, I'd say do it right. And, that means, getting a system that will allow for growth -- to more then 3 parties if/when that time comes. Note: with Condorcet, you don't need to rank ALL candidates. Only the ones you wish to rank. All others will be considered equally worse than the ones you rank.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

I like IRV/AV for head of state elections and MMPR (by a landslide) for legislative elections.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

[ QUOTE ]
In our two party system I don't think this would make much of a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true, it would actually force several third parties into the spotlight if they were allowed on ballots.

Also, the Condorcet winner is not a voting method - the method is the Copeland method, the Condorcet winner is a candidate who wins all of its match ups under the Copeland method, and the Condorcet criterion for voting. I didn't look at your links so perhaps that was covered.

The major problem with the Copeland method is that it violates the Pareto condition, which states that if everyone prefers candidate X to Y, Y cannot win. Observe:

3 candidates, A, B, and C. Here is a chart of numbered preferences for several groups of people:

9 voters vote: ABC (A is the first choice, C the third).
10 voters vote: BAC
11 voters vote: CAB

Now, counting just first place votes (meaning by plurality), C wins, with 11 first place votes. Here is when you test the Condorcet criterion:

A vs B: A wins with 20 voters to 10 preferring it.
A vs C: A wins with 19 votes to 11.
B vs C: B wins with 19 to 11.

Here, A is the winner with the Copeland method, not C. Though it's accepted that no voting system is perfect.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

The "Condorcet Method" is any voting system that uses the Condorcet criteria in determining the winner. The Copeland system is an implementation of that, but it's not a very good one, in my opinion. Copeland assigns points to wins & losses, and then tallys those points to get a final number. It makes it easier for the less-informed to understand, but there are better ways that avoid picking the wrong winner.

Also, Condorcet & Copeland meet the Pareto condition. In your example (which is just like mine), "A" wins, and is not less preferred to any other candidate.

The worst part about Condorcet, is that you can get results where no candidate wins all the pair-wise "elections". Observe:

10: A>B>C
8: B>C>A
3: C>A>B

Here, A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A. There are ways to determine the winner, though... by dropping the person that is the "weakest" win (in this case, C beats A with 11 votes, so is dropped).

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

The purpose of voting is to elect a winning candidate. Anything that detracts from that is not a good thing.

All these ranking type plans do is encourage people to engage in fantasies and single issue candidacies.

A simple past the post system is the best. It forces people to form a broad coalition with people they do not agree with even 80% of the time. Both of the two major parties are good examples of such broad coalitions.

We aren't voting to indulge ourselves, we are voting to pick a winner. We should discourage third parties and who cares if someone does not win a majority?

We can get a new person in office for the next election, we are not electing a person for life. Rotating between the parties is more effective than trying to pick the absolute "perfect" candidate each time. The very idea of condorcet voting is based on a flawed assumption about what an election is all about.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

[ QUOTE ]
The purpose of voting is to elect a winning candidate. Anything that detracts from that is not a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the purpose of voting is to voice your opinion/preference in the candidates, and have the winner be the one that satisfies most people's preferences. Any system that prohibits people from voicing thier true candidate preference, is not a good thing.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

Unfortunately most people agree with you about voting, but opinion polls are for you to express yourself, elections are for picking candidates.

The founders set up an electoral college (non-direct selection - originally electors were picked by state legislatures not voters). They also set up a Senate picked by state legislatures not voters.

This is our government not a psychiatrist's couch. It doesn't matter if you feel good about voting, just that the government positions are filled.

All your fancy voting systems are just exercises in game playing. Go ahead have your fun theorizing, but please don't screw up our system.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

[ QUOTE ]
The founders set up an electoral college (non-direct selection - originally electors were picked by state legislatures not voters).
...
All your fancy voting systems are just exercises in game playing. Go ahead have your fun theorizing, but please don't screw up our system.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's funny, is that the system is already screwed up. Originally, the electoral college was not bound to vote for a particular candidate. There was no "winner take all" like almost all of the states use today. People would choose electorates, and those people would vote for 2 people. After all the electoral votes were tallied in Congress, the person with the most votes would be president, and the runner-up would be vice president.

I think this system is far better than the one we have today. The Framers didn't trust a direct popular vote for president, and they didn't foresee the power of political parties. The system is now messed up, and it needs to be fixed.

To say the Condorcet system, or discussing voting methods in general is "game playing" is ironic. Obviously the system we have today is plagued by political games -- and the Presidential election is one of the worst.

Reference: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

Perhaps you just don't like the result, but each election is a contest between two compromise candidates (with few exceptions). The electorate gets to nudge the country's direction one way or the other.

Adding a bunch of one-issue candidates adds nothing to the process.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

Obviously, you are not a Libertarian. My guess... Republican?

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

[ QUOTE ]
We should discourage third parties

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree. If they thought that 150 years ago we wouldn't have the Republican Party.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We should discourage third parties

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree. If they thought that 150 years ago we wouldn't have the Republican Party.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Good one, but an interesting point of history is that the GOP was never a third party in any Presidential election. The Whig Party died so completely (from their inherent inconsistency dealing with the Kansas/Nebraska Act of 1854) that the GOP was one of the two major parties in their very first Presidential election (1856).

The only time third parties succeed is when one of the major parties literally implodes. The Federalists imploded over the War of 1812, and the Whigs imploded over Kansas. All other third parties that gain any strength get absorbed by one or both of the major parties (Such as the Progressives in the early 20th Century).

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you just don't like the result, but each election is a contest between two compromise candidates (with few exceptions). The electorate gets to nudge the country's direction one way or the other.

Adding a bunch of one-issue candidates adds nothing to the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if I'd put it so starkly -- perhaps that is just my liberal sensibilities -- but I basically argue with El Barto.

The biggest problem that I see with Condorcet is that it would likely decrease participation in major party primaries without significantly increasing the likelihood of 3rd parties getting elected.

Sure, you could easily vote for Ralph Nader and then vote for Gore when your Nader vote got thrown out, or you could vote for Buchanan or whoever the Libraterian (sic) candidate was, and then vote for Bush.

But by declining to participate in the primaries you actually end up playing a less signficant role in choosing whomever actually ends up getting elected because you leave it to a small fringe of party activists to choose the party nominee.

Politics is already insular enough in this country and I think that Condorcet, as counterintuitive as it sounds, would actually further insulate the political parties from other voices.

Of course, the counter argument is that leading candidates would have to pursue the "2nd choice" votes of supporters of lower tier candidates. But I don't much stock in that. (A) Most of those who would pick a candidate second will do so regardless of pandering from that candidate. (B) The candidates already need to pay some attention to those voters so that they don't lose their votes altogether. (C) There are many more "independent" voters in the "middle" and candidates will not be able to afford to ignore them to pursue second place votes of fringe voters.

Bottom-line: You can have a lot more impact in the primary. If you don't think there is a difference between Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman, you may disagree, but you're wrong.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

That makes sense. In my opinion, though, having more than 2 candidates is a good thing. And, with the current system, no 3rd party can do anything other than swing votes away from one of the 2 major parties. If we can't do that, I'd rather go back to the Framers' original system -- and get rid of the "winner takes all" system where the EC is forced to vote by what the popular election decided.

My cynical side thinks that would be better than having a popularly elected president, actually. But, my hopeful, idealistic, side would like to see people make informed voting decisions, and be able to voice their preferences honestly.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, though, having more than 2 candidates is a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

We do have more than 2 candidates. We have a whole primary process to go through. You need to join the libertarian wing of one of the major parties and get your guy nominated.

In the 1980's Jack Kemp was the libertarian candidate of choice in the GOP for example. I was there and was part of the libertarian wing of the party that supported him. And Reagan was also acceptable to us as the compromise.

When you are a small segment of the political universe, you can't expect to win a lot, but you can have an impact. Fancy general election voting gimmicks will get you less than your participation in the primaries will.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, though, having more than 2 candidates is a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

We do have more than 2 candidates. We have a whole primary process to go through. You need to join the libertarian wing of one of the major parties and get your guy nominated.

In the 1980's Jack Kemp was the libertarian candidate of choice in the GOP for example. I was there and was part of the libertarian wing of the party that supported him. And Reagan was also acceptable to us as the compromise.

When you are a small segment of the political universe, you can't expect to win a lot, but you can have an impact. Fancy general election voting gimmicks will get you less than your participation in the primaries will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. Just look at what Pat Robertson accomplished by doing well in Iowa in 1988 when he founded the Christian Coalition. He helped put the evangelical movement square at the center of the GOP. It's true that Robertson himself is not as significant nowadays, but one need look no further than Miers to see the impact candidacies like his can have on the process.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, though, having more than 2 candidates is a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

We do have more than 2 candidates. We have a whole primary process to go through.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not just let all of the candidates that run in the primary run in the general election? You can still have a primary to get the nomination from your party, but then allow people to list their true preference in the general election. It would also help when the person that wins the primary shows him/herself to be a bafoon between that time and the election.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, though, having more than 2 candidates is a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

We do have more than 2 candidates. We have a whole primary process to go through.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not just let all of the candidates that run in the primary run in the general election? You can still have a primary to get the nomination from your party, but then allow people to list their true preference in the general election. It would also help when the person that wins the primary shows him/herself to be a bafoon between that time and the election.

[/ QUOTE ]

In most states that I know of, you can do this already. If you lose a primary, as long as you qualify for the ballot, you can get on the general election ballot. Didn't John Anderson run this way in 1980?

However, as far as automatically advancing, parties have a constitutional right to choose their nominee, so you'd have to amend the constitution to allow this. I don't have all the court cases at my fingertips, but I'm definitely right.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

[ QUOTE ]
In most states that I know of, you can do this already. If you lose a primary, as long as you qualify for the ballot, you can get on the general election ballot.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I meant, is that when you become a 3rd party in a voting system that favors 2 parties, it doesn't do much good. Since people only get to select one name, most will pick one of the two major parties, even though they may like your views better. Even worse, if you are very popular, you risk detracting enough votes from one of the main candidates that is closest to you (politically), that you end up letting the other main candidate win.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

[ QUOTE ]
parties have a constitutional right to choose their nominee

[/ QUOTE ]

God, you guys find constitutional rights to everything! Parties didn't even exist when the constitution was written. How did they suddenly get these special constitutional rights? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Someone please show me where all these secretly hidden rights are written down. I'd like to find a few for myself. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

Yeah, why don't we get rid of the playoffs and let 8 teams all play in the World Series. I'm sure we could figure out some special mathematical formula to figure out who the world champ is. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
parties have a constitutional right to choose their nominee

[/ QUOTE ]

God, you guys find constitutional rights to everything! Parties didn't even exist when the constitution was written. How did they suddenly get these special constitutional rights? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Someone please show me where all these secretly hidden rights are written down. I'd like to find a few for myself. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

The most recent case of this actually involved both the Democratic and Republican parties in Washington state suing in order to have their "constitutional rights" protected. I agree, it's bull. But it is what it is. We used to have an open primary, now it is a closed primary because of them.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
parties have a constitutional right to choose their nominee

[/ QUOTE ]

God, you guys find constitutional rights to everything!

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "you guys"? "You guys", as in, "you guys that don't know what the Constituion says"? True. I agree. :P

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
parties have a constitutional right to choose their nominee

[/ QUOTE ]

God, you guys find constitutional rights to everything!

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "you guys"? "You guys", as in, "you guys that don't know what the Constituion says"? True. I agree. :P

[/ QUOTE ]

By "you guys" I mean liberals in general, and liberal judges in particular.

Those guys are great at manufacturing constitutional rights out of this air.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

In the eyes of the U.S. Supreme Court, the issue is so clearcut that they wouldn't even hear an appeal.

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/office/os...Bcp44oaQ%3D%3D

Oh well.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, why don't we get rid of the playoffs and let 8 teams all play in the World Series. I'm sure we could figure out some special mathematical formula to figure out who the world champ is. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this the problem? You don't understand the math, so you have to balk at the suggestion?

The math just makes the process more efficient.

What's really going on, is a series of playoffs... er, elections. So that the person that wins really is the one that most people would have voted for in a fair competition.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

Understanding the math isn't the problem. The game would be different if played with 8 teams, and elections would be messed up with 8 candidates.

Most people don't pay close attention to elections. Its hard enough to get them to pay attention to 2 candidates' positions. Your system would actually make the typical person less informed about each candidate.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

Actually, most people would probably still pay attention to their ONE candidate. But, if you are concerned that voters aren't informed, then we should go back to how the Framers' intended the system to be.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
parties have a constitutional right to choose their nominee

[/ QUOTE ]

God, you guys find constitutional rights to everything! Parties didn't even exist when the constitution was written. How did they suddenly get these special constitutional rights? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Someone please show me where all these secretly hidden rights are written down. I'd like to find a few for myself. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

The most recent case of this actually involved both the Democratic and Republican parties in Washington state suing in order to have their "constitutional rights" protected. I agree, it's bull. But it is what it is. We used to have an open primary, now it is a closed primary because of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

People have a right to form associations and determine their own membership. Closed primaries are certainly permissible.

However, I do object to official state election commissions paying for and officiating such closed primaries.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

agreed. open primaries are much better.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

[ QUOTE ]
The "Condorcet Method" is any voting system that uses the Condorcet criteria in determining the winner. The Copeland system is an implementation of that, but it's not a very good one, in my opinion. Copeland assigns points to wins & losses, and then tallys those points to get a final number. It makes it easier for the less-informed to understand, but there are better ways that avoid picking the wrong winner.

Also, Condorcet & Copeland meet the Pareto condition. In your example (which is just like mine), "A" wins, and is not less preferred to any other candidate.

The worst part about Condorcet, is that you can get results where no candidate wins all the pair-wise "elections". Observe:

10: A>B>C
8: B>C>A
3: C>A>B

Here, A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A. There are ways to determine the winner, though... by dropping the person that is the "weakest" win (in this case, C beats A with 11 votes, so is dropped).

[/ QUOTE ]

The Pareto condition, in my experience, refers to first preferences, so my example is actually a counterexample, and the Copeland method does not satisfy the Pareto condition.

Also, the Copeland method does not assign points at all - I'm not sure where you got that. It individually compares voter preferences in one on one matches - the only system that the Condorcet winner can be derived from. The difference is that a Condorcet winner must win ALL of the pairwise comparisons, whereas the Copeland method has no such requirement.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Pareto condition, in my experience, refers to first preferences, so my example is actually a counterexample, and the Copeland method does not satisfy the Pareto condition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pareto is a condition where every voter prefers candidate X to candidate Y:

[ QUOTE ]
Pareto Optimality

A voting system is Pareto-optimal if when every voter prefers alternative x to alternative y, alternative y is not selected. This criterion is similar to the monotonicity criterion, but is more often satisfied by the voting systems that have been proposed. It is sometimes referred to as the unanimity criterion.

Both Pareto-optimality and monotonicity relate to the collective rationality of a group decision-making procedure. Clearly if one were to make a decision based entirely on one's own preferences, one would not select y if one preferred x. The rational individual would select an alternative other than y (x or an alternative preferred to x). Likewise if one had selected x and later received news that x was even better than originally thought or that y was even worse than originally thought, one would not switch the selection to y. The rational individual would stick with the selection of x. When many decision-makers must make a group decision, we can extend the rules we would follow for individual decision-making. Thus if every decision-maker prefers x to y then it would be irrational for the group as a whole to select y. Likewise, if the group selects x and one or more group members decide that x is even better than originally thought or y is even worse than originally thought, the group should not change its decision. Thus with Pareto-optimality and monotonicity, the notion of what is individually rational can be extended easily to what is collectively rational.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only method that I know fails Pareto is the "Approval" method. Borda, IRV, Condorcet (Copeland), all pass the Pareto condition.

Re: Condorcet Voting Method
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the Copeland method does not assign points at all - I'm not sure where you got that.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://condorcet.org/emr/methods.shtml :
[ QUOTE ]
Name: Copeland

Definition:

Each alternative's Copeland score is calculated by subtracting the number of alternatives that pairwise beat it from the number that it beats. The alternatives with the highest Copeland score win.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://theorem.ca/~mvcorks/code/voting_methods.html :
[ QUOTE ]
The last system uses the Condorcet style of pairwise comparison. It was proposed by A. H. Copeland in 1950.

Copeland:
Hold pairwise votes between every pair of alternatives. Assign 1 points to an alternative for winning, and
-1 for losing. The winner is the alternative with the highest score.

This Condorcet-style system disregards the intensity of a voter’s preference between two alternatives (unlike, for example, the Borda count), and so leads to many ties.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It individually compares voter preferences in one on one matches - the only system that the Condorcet winner can be derived from.

[/ QUOTE ]

A "Condorcet winner" is one that is not defeated any any pair-wise comparison. Yes, Copeland is a Condorcet method.

[ QUOTE ]
The difference is that a Condorcet winner must win ALL of the pairwise comparisons, whereas the Copeland method has no such requirement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, a "Condorcet winner" must win all pair-wise comparisons. But Copeland deals with circular ambiguities by keeping a "score". Copeland will often result in ties and/or pick the wrong candidate. Other methods of resolving circular ambiguities are much better: Schulze, Smith, minimax, etc.