<transcript><audio_118> classée. Et si on fait les comptes, les options à éliminer en premier ici, ce sont la D, mais surtout la A, c'est-à-dire celle qui était gagnante avec le vote alternatif. Parce que oui, c'est celle qui a été le plus souvent classée en premier, mais c'est également celle</transcript><transcript><audio_119> refusé de classer. C'est donc la plus clivante en quelque sorte. Au final, avec la méthode de Coombs, c'est l'option B qui l'emporte au deuxième tour. Ceci dit, si l'option A avait été classée une fois de plus en première position, le vote alternatif</transcript><transcript><audio_120> l'auraient toutes les deux déclarées gagnantes dès le premier tour, alors que ce serait toujours l'option la plus rejetée. Donc on est encore loin de la recherche du meilleur consensus, même avec la méthode de Coombs. On va donc maintenant se baser sur cet exemple là pour chercher le système</transcript><caption><image_121>The image is a screenshot of a computer screen with a table that shows the results of a game. The table is divided into three columns - option A, option B, and option C. Each column has a different color - red, green, yellow, and orange. The options are arranged in a grid-like format, with the red column on the left side and the green column in the middle. The background of the table is black, and there is a city skyline in the background. On the right side of the screen, there is an icon of a thermometer, which is used to measure the temperature of the game.</caption><transcript><audio_122> La méthode Condorcet. Dans la méthode Condorcet, comme dans le vote alternatif ou la méthode de Coombs, chaque votant classe toutes les options ou une partie des options par ordre de préférence. Mais lors du dépouillement, on compare toutes les options de par</transcript><transcript><audio_123> chaque bulletin le nombre de fois que chaque option est classée devant l'autre. L'option gagnante est celle qui aura gagné ces duels virtuels contre toutes les autres options. En fait, cette méthode revient là encore à simuler des votes à la majorité absolue avec deux options. Mais le principal avantage</transcript> flatly refused to classify and if we do the  accounts the options eliminated first here these are but especially the one which was winner with the alternative vote because yes it is the one which was most often classified first but it is also  the one that we most often refused to  classify it is therefore the most divisive in a way in the end with the com' method it is option b which wins in the second round that said if option a had been classified once again in first position  the alternative vote and the method of as I would have both declared it the winner in the first round while it would always be the most rejected option so we are still far from the search for the best consensus even with the method of communications on  will now base ourselves on this example to  look for the voting system which really favors consensus the condorcet method in the condorcet method as in the alternative vote or the koons method each voter classifies all the options or part of the options in order of preference but during the counting we compare all the options  options two by two by counting on each ballot the number of times that each option is ranked in front of the other the winning option is the one which will have won its virtual duels against all the other options in fact this method again amounts to simulating votes  by absolute majority with two options but the main
{"source": "grass-yt-cc-by.03NtiW-NXcI|shard_10044_53|create_multimodal_data.extract_yt_and_generate_transcripts.54|shard_10044|create_multimodal_data.generate_captions.54|shard_10044|create_multimodal_data.generate_captions.54", "params": {"id": "03NtiW-NXcI", "channel_id": "UC0yPCUmdMZIGtnxSnx5_ifA", "duration": 3128, "view_count": 40972, "age_limit": 0, "chapters": [{"start_time": 0.0, "title": "Introduction", "end_time": 46.0}, {"start_time": 46.0, "title": "Comment d\u00e9cider \u00e0 plusieurs", "end_time": 153.0}, {"start_time": 153.0, "title": "D'autres \u00ab \u00e9vidences \u00bb", "end_time": 363.0}, {"start_time": 363.0, "title": "Consensus", "end_time": 538.0}, {"start_time": 538.0, "title": "M\u00e9thodes de d\u00e9cision", "end_time": 649.0}, {"start_time": 649.0, "title": "1 Tirage au sort", "end_time": 756.0}, {"start_time": 756.0, "title": "2 Vote \u00e0 la proportionnelle", "end_time": 937.0}, {"start_time": 937.0, "title": "3 Vote \u00e0 la majorit\u00e9 relative", "end_time": 987.0}, {"start_time": 987.0, "title": "4 Vote \u00e0 la majorit\u00e9 absolue", "end_time": 1244.0}, {"start_time": 1244.0, "title": "5 Vote alternatif et m\u00e9thode de Coombs", "end_time": 1450.0}, {"start_time": 1450.0, "title": "6 M\u00e9thode Condorcet", "end_time": 1581.0}, {"start_time": 1581.0, "title": "7 Vote par approbation", "end_time": 1698.0}, {"start_time": 1698.0, "title": "8 M\u00e9thode Borda", "end_time": 1849.0}, {"start_time": 1849.0, "title": "9 Vote cumulatif", "end_time": 1904.0}, {"start_time": 1904.0, "title": "Options suppl\u00e9mentaires", "end_time": 2097.0}, {"start_time": 2097.0, "title": "Ma pr\u00e9f\u00e9rence", "end_time": 2278.0}, {"start_time": 2278.0, "title": "Jugement majoritaire", "end_time": 2634.0}, {"start_time": 2634.0, "title": "Ma d\u00e9mocratie", "end_time": 2980.0}, {"start_time": 2980.0, "title": "Pr\u00e9sentation du fichier Excel", "end_time": 3065.0}, {"start_time": 3065.0, "title": "Pr\u00e9sentation du site Borda", "end_time": 3090.0}, {"start_time": 3090.0, "title": "Conclusion", "end_time": 3128}], "like_count": 2261, "channel_follower_count": 51700, "license": "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)", "uploader_id": "@EspritCritique", "yt_tar_file": "/leonardo_work/EUHPC_E03_068/audio/fixed_download/grass-yt-cc-by//shard_10044/03NtiW-NXcI.tar.gz"}}