James--
You wrote:
[Regarding the choice of a public Condorcet proposal]
There are at least three areas of possible divergence: 1. The base method: Minimax (candidate whose worst loss is least bad), sequential dropping (drop the weakest defeat that's in a cycle until a candidate is unbeaten) ranked pairs, river, beatpath, Condorcet completed by another method, approval hybrids, etc.
I reply:
You left out SSD, which, in public elections, where there won't be pair-ties, will give the same outcome as BeatpathWinner or CSSD--but whose definition is much more naturally and obviously motivated and justified.
You continued:
2. Measures of defeat strength: margins, winning votes, or something else (cardinal-weighted pairwise (CWP), approval-weighted pairwise (AWP), etc.)
3. Whether to use an anti-strategy measure (candidate withdrawal option (CWO), CWP, AERLO/ATLO, iterative procedure, etc.)
Area (1) is not necessarily the most contentious; i.e. most people who like beatpath like ranked pairs just about as much, and so on. However, I would not feel especially good about a method that isn't Smith-efficient, even to start out with. So that cuts out plain minimax as far as I'm concerned.
I reply:
...but I claim that PC is more meaningfully and practically compared to Plurality & IRV than to the Smith-efficient Condorcet versions.
You continued:
I know that Mike Ossipoff has said that we should all come together around a winning votes method without an additional anti-strategy measure.
I reply:
Yes, because a Condorcet proposal is simpler if it doesn't include those enhancements. And, even without the enhancements, wv Condorcet would still be a big improvement over Plurality, IRV, or margins Condorcet, etc.
You continued:
But I'd like to hear what some other people think.
I'm not even sure what I would recommend, if I was in a position to
recommend something for public elections. I lean towards starting out with
a winning votes version of sequential dropping (or any one of ranked
pairs, beatpath, river, if there isn't an intense need for simplicity)
with a CWO. But that's subject to change, with further discussion.I reply:
SD would be a fine initial public proposal. Sure, with CWO if CWO does well in polls and discussions and conversations.
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
