Kevin, Yes I am sure you are right, thanks. Probably then I'll stick with MDD,ER-Bucklin(whole) as my favourite FBC method.
Chris Benham Kevin Venzke wrote: >Chris, > >--- Chris Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > > >>Kevin, Warren, other FBC freaks, >> >>I've recently had an idea for a FBC-complying Margins method. >> >>"Voters rank the candidates, equal-ranking and truncation allowed. >>(1) Make pairwise comparisons. Treating pairwise defeats by margins >>that are smaller >> than or equal to the number of ballots on which both candidates are >>ranked equal-top >>as pairwise equalities, eliminate candidates that are not in the >>smallest non-empty set of >>candidates that are pairwise undefeated by any outside-the-set >>candidates. >> >>(2)If more than one candidate remains, drop eliminated candidates from >>the ballots and >>then delete ballots that make no ranking distinction between remaining >>candidates, and repeat >>step 1. >> >> > >There are two reasons why I don't believe this can work. > >1. You're using a beatpath concept. Although you're replacing certain >wins with pairwise ties, it could be that a pairwise tie between X and >Y is what causes them to be excluded from the top tier. Replacing wins >with ties only helps to satisfy FBC when it's clear that a tie between >X and Y is at least as good for them as one of them beating the other. > >2. You're eliminating candidates and recalculating. I think all you >can afford to do is disqualify candidates without recalculating anything. >Elimination makes it difficult to foresee what a specific vote is capable >of doing across multiple rounds. It's much the same issue as Raynaud >or Nanson failing monotonicity. > >Kevin Venzke > > > > > > > > > ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
