Jobst--
Thanks for yoiur answer to my question about DMC's definition, and for your
postings about its properties.
Sure, DMC has some desirable properties, and, having a pairwise count and a
points count, lets those counts serve as "checks & balances" for eachother.
I don't claim that my criteria are the only important ones, or criticize
other criteria or properties, but there are several criteria that, for me,
are the important ones.
For public political elections:
FBC. That's the important one for public political elections. But SFC would
be good too, and also the other majority defensive strategy criteria--GSFC,
WDSC, & SDSC.
For organizations and committees:
The majority defensive strategy criteria--SFC, GSFC, WDSC, & SDSC. If an
organization has a really undesirable candidate, as is possible even in a
small organization, then FBC would be convenient to have. But it would come
at the cost of GSFC, and, less importantlyi, Ccndorcet's Criterion & Smith's
Criterion. As I was saying yesterday, FBC is only really necessary when
there's at least one reallly undesirable candidate, AND some voters are
seriously mistaken (in the opinioni of other voters) aboiut what is
acceptable. Though that condition definitely obtains in our public political
elections, it probably won't happen in organizations, and so, since FBC is
probably incompatible with GSFC, I'd probabaly choose GSFC.
Approval & RV have the social optimization properties that some of have
already discussed.
Because of thoses criterion preferences, I like the following methods.
Organizations & committees:
BeatpathWinner or CSSD. Or, if more simplicity is desired) PC, MDDA or MDDB.
Choosing between PC vs MDDA or MDDB would be a matter of choosing between
FBC vs Condorcet's Criterion and Smith's Criterion. Since PC might not meet
GSFC, the choice beween it and MDDA or MDDB isn't so obvious. I'm not sure
which I'd choose. Approval or RV would be good too, but, for this
application I prefer the rank method listed.
Public political elections:
Best: MDDA, or maybe MDDB, which combine FBC with SFC, thereby accomodating
the needs of different kinds of voters. It now seems to me that MDDA is
better than MDDB. I'd said that SR would be a good proposal under certain
conditions, when people insist on a really simple rank method that only has
one part. But the power-truncation that SR needs probably spoils its
one-part simplicity. Of course the power truncation could be added
aftwerwards though, in a subsequent initiative. So maybe SR is still in the
running. Approval or RV would be good too, meeting FBC and having
advantages of their own. Most winnable of the good public methods: RV.
Mike Ossipoff
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
