Why not go a lot further with mixing Approval with Ranked Pairs and use Approval//Disapproval to sort the pairwise contests. It's probably easier to explain by adapting an example from the list archives:
7:A>B>>C>D 5:B>>D>C>A 4:D>C>>A>B 4:C>D>>A>B 1:D>>B>C>A (>> represents the Approval cut-off point). The pairwise results are as follows: A>B 15:6 C>A 14:7 D>A 14:7 B>C 13:8 B>D 12:9 C>D 11:10 Approval results are: A=7, B=12, C=8, D=9 The pairwise wins for each Candidate are sorted in Candidate Approval order. The pairwise wins for each candidate is then sorted in Disapproval order. The pairwise wins are sorted in Approval order of the pairwise winner. The pairwise wins for each candidate is then sorted in Disapproval order for each pairwise loser. B: B>C B>D D: D>A => B>D>A C: C>A C>D => B>C>D>A A: A>B (Ignore) FINAL RESULT: B>C>D>A Well, at least it makes the Margins v. Winning Votes debate pointless. As no pairwise votes or margins are counted, I think it is reasonably truncation resistant. I initially thought that this method may not select the Condorcet Winner. However, I think it will always select the Condorcet Winner as there is no pairwise result that can be added to the Beat Path that would make [This Ranked Pair Method Winner and Non-Condorcet Winner] > [Condorcet Winner]. This is becuase, by definition, for each pairwise contest, [Condorcet Winner] > [Each of the other candidates]. I was just wondering if there is a reasonable Condorcet Method that does not always select the Condorcet winner. To a certain extent, I think this woudl be a good thing as the method would more likely not fall into the Condorcet Criterion Incompatibility with the Participation, Consistency and Monotonicity Criteria. CC incompatible with Participation & Consistency <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/message/8506> CC incompatible with Monotonicity <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/message/8452> Thanks, Gervase. ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
