[EMAIL PROTECTED]">That is what I anticipated...That exact method is implemented in my simulation as Dodgson(m). My "Dodgson"
isn't exactly Dodgson's method; it simply takes whatever pairwise matrix is
calculated (whether margins, winning-votes, etc.) and sums each candidate's
column. The one with the lowest sum is elected. (Mike's "Minimize Overruling"
in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/message/6433 is the same
as Dodgson(wv).) The "Dodgson" methods do very well in my SU simulations; in
fact, Dodgson(av) almost rivals Borda in SU.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">As I noted, you would have to sacrifice Smith if you are interested in higher SU.Unfortunately, Dodgson methods do
poorly in criterion compliances. I believe all four of them fail independence
of clones and Smith, both of which are important to me.
If Smith is more important than SU, then this is not the best method. As we know,
there is a significant difference in opinion about which criteria are important.
You could of course create a Smith compliant version, by eliminating non-Smith
candidates before applying the method, though I doubt that would leave the method
with any advantages over other methods (except simplicity of the calculations after
the Smith set is determined).
Not sure what, if anything, could be done about clones in this method.
A sequential variant is also possible: Eliminate the candidate with highest cost.
Strike both the rows and columns corresponding to that candidate from the
pairwise matrix. Recalculate the costs, and eliminate the candidate with the highest
cost among the remaining candidates. Repeat until one candidate is left. I haven't
given much thought to this variant yet. Maybe, like my previous suggestion, it's
already been tried.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">I don't know what "all-votes" methods are. Could you define this term for me?And Dodgson(av), the
best in SU, even fails Condorcet, just like most other "all-votes" methods.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Richard
