Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed Video Selection Process)

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Sun, 24 November 2013 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F6291AE374 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:02:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.425
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.425 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YMaqPWpNiAry for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:02:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DE221AE1B8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:02:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4397639E562; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 23:02:09 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BZw7be2bxK3E; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 23:02:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [172.30.42.84] (c-58f0e555.03-217-73746f1.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se [85.229.240.88]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8F5039E3C2; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 23:02:08 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <5292775F.6020600@alvestrand.no>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 23:02:07 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>, rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <528E39F4.4010706@ericsson.com> <528E5AF7.5080403@alvestrand.no> <52922ED3.7070908@alvestrand.no> <002d01cee949$51a4c3c0$f4ee4b40$@co.in>
In-Reply-To: <002d01cee949$51a4c3c0$f4ee4b40$@co.in>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed Video Selection Process)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 22:02:17 -0000

On 11/24/2013 08:13 PM, Parthasarathi R wrote:
> Hi Harald & all,
>
> IMO, The fundamental problem with these methods (Condorcet & IRV) is that
> they are designed to find the winner out of the discrete candidates (A, B,
> C) in mind whereas the candidates in this voting is of combination of
> discrete and set nature (A, B, (A & B), (A | B)). I like to see the proof
> whether the above methods (Condorcet & IRV) are really designed to bring the
> correct winner in these set of candidates as well.
>
> I can show how your example of Condorcet fail with (A|B) is as follows: The
> candidates are A,B, (A|B) 

Question: Why do you consider choosing A|B a fail, given that you give
exactly the same preference numbers under which I consider this position
a reasonable outcome?

The Condorcet winner will always beat each other candidate if no other
candidate is present (except in the case of a loop). With your numbers,
A|B is preferred over A, and A|B is preferred over B, so why is choosing
A|B a fail?


-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.