On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 04:55 +0000, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: > On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 05:40 +0000, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: > >BeatpathWinner and CSSD, though they're equivalent, are completely > >different algorithms > > You replied: > > what > > I reply: > > BeatpathfWinner and CSSD are two different count rules, implemented via > different algorithms. > > But they always give the same results as eachother, so they're said to be > equivalent. >
If they're exactly equivalent, why even care about the less simple algorithm? f(x) = e^(2*ln (x)) and g(x) = x^2 are seemingly different algortihms, yet they're exactly equivalent too - hence, they're actually the same algorithm, and indeed the same function. > Let me define them here: > > (snip) > > As I said, BeatpathWinner and CSSD always give the same result as eachother, > and so they're said to be equivalent. > > The BeatpathWinner algorithm is much simpler and briefer, but the CSSD > algorithm seems more naturally and obviously motivated and justified. > > I often refer to BeatpathWinner and CSSD as one method, by calling it > BeatpathWinner/CSSD. I've been recommending it for committees, > organizations, and meetings. > Forgive me for not using a 9 syllable phrase to describe something that appears to be exactly equivalent to what's also being called Shulze's method. I don't mean to intrude on this contest you two seem to be in (the internet, after all, is serious business), but for brevity's sake I hope you don't mind if I use the term that might help with my laryngitis. > I've been recommending SSD for public elections. In public elections, where > there are no pairwise ties, SSD and CSSD give the same results. In small > committees, SSD isn't clone-independent, and CSSD is. But in public > elections they both are. > > For public proposals, SSD is my favorite of the best wv methods, because its > definition doesn't refer to cycles or beatpaths, directly or indirectly. > There has been good reason to believe that that makes SSD more acceptable to > people. > Cool stuff. > More recently I"ve heard tha MMPO meets FBC (with AERLO, it meets Strong > FBC). Also, MMPO is much briefer and simpler to define and propose, because > it doesn't need the list of preliminary definitions that the wv methods > need. So MMPO has become my favorite public proposal. > > I hadn't considered whether MMPO is a better proposal for committees, > organizations and meetings too, but it probably is. Especially since the > most valuable thing about electoral reform in committees, organizations and > meetings is that it provides experience and precedent for public proposals. > > Mike Ossipoff > ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
