James, I had written: > Approval Margins is highly resistant to Burying, and in my view is not qualitatively worse in this respect than Approval-Weighted Pairwise.
And you responded: > "Could you please support these two assertions?" For the time being I'll just say that my observation is borne out by a lot of examples. In all your excellent examples given to demonstrate AWP's resistance to Burying, AM also frustrates the Buriers; except in one where AWP "cheated" by electing a "strongly defeated" candidate (pairwise beaten by a candidate with a higher approval score). Here is an example in which they both fail: 49: A>>C>B (sincere is A>B>>C) 03: B>>A>C 48: C>>B>A > "Here's the main (minor, but worth noting) difference I see between Steve's original proposal and my current understanding of S/WPO... Steve's method counts > initially as >, and then changes it to = if there is no CW. Thus, the direction of the pairwise defeats could change in the second count. My version of S/WPO, on the other hand, counts > as > when it comes to the direction of the defeat (whether there is a CW or not), but counts it as = for the purpose of finding the strength of the defeats. Thus the initial defeat directions are preserved. I think that the latter approach is preferable, in that it has greater continuity than the first." Of course in the 3-candidate situation, your S/WPO (winning votes) is the same thing as AWP while S/WPO(Margins) would be the same thing as AM. Chris Benham Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
