Hi, Markus S wrote: > Steve E wrote (5 Nov 2004): >> If he thinks it matters, hopefully Markus will tell us >> which MTM tiebreaker he has in mind. > > Your "minimize thwarted majorities" (MTM) method has been > defined here (23 Feb 2000): > http://lists.electorama.com/htdig.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com/2000-February/003600.html > > Minimize Thwarted Majorities (MTM) > ---------------------------------- > If Vij > Vji and the social ordering ranks j ahead of i, > then the social ordering "thwarts" the Vij majority who > ranked i ahead of j. > > Select as the social ordering the ordering which > minimizes thwarted majorities. > > By "minimizing" thwarted majorities, I mean that to compare > two orderings to see which is better, we compare each > ordering's largest thwarted majority. If that's a tie > then compare their second largest, etc.
Ah. Thanks for the clarification. That definition was both old and abbreviated. The method evolved into MAM. If no pairing is a tie and no two pairings have the same size majority, that old definition produces the same social ordering that MAM does. So it may still be a useful description in the context of elections having many voters. --Steve ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
