Jobst, could you please clarify below? On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:56:06 -0800 (PST), Forest Simmons wrote: > On Sat, 19 Mar 2005, Jobst Heitzig wrote: > > By the way, here's a simple "procedural" version of the method, to be > > used in meetings: > > First, options may be suggested, and for every option it is asked who > > approves of it. They are written onto blackboard in order of approval. > > Then some member of the group is picked at random. S/he proposes some of > > the options, and then this option is subjected to pairwise contests with > > the more approved ones, beginning with the most approved one. If none of > > them wins with majority strength, the proposed option wins. Otherwise, > > the next person is chosen at random and proposes an option, until the > > proposed option survives all pairwise contests with more approved ones. > > This will hopefully lead to people proposing very good compromises, > > since otherwise they will experience to have their proposal defeated by > > a more approved option, which would make their proposal look somewhat > > ridiculous. > > > > I'd like to ask you to test this procedure with your favourite group! > > > > This procedure is very appealing to me. > It would be a good way to sell the method in a group setting. > > One could use it to pick a restaurant for the group to adjourn to after > the meeting if they didn't want to test it on a more important decision. > > Forest >
Jobst / Forest : Could you translate this into a pairwise sorted algorithm for me? It appears that by starting with the most approved candidate to test against, you're bubble-sorting downward instead of upward. Or am I missing something? Ted -- araucaria dot araucana at gmail dot com ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
