Kevin, The approval cutoff is moved adjacent to (but not past) the name of the candidate in question. So it ends up on the same side of the candidate name as the original approval cutoff.
Something else: If we eliminate the word "other" in the sentence "So each candidate's score is her minimum reactionary approval relative to the other candidates. " then we get another method not equivalent to MinMax in the complete ranking case. Forest >From: Forest W Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [EM] Does this method already have a name? >To: [email protected] >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >Ballots are ordinal with approval cutoffs. > >The candidate with "Maximum Minimal Reactionary Approval" wins. > >A candidate's "reactionary approval" relative to another candidate is >the approval she would get if the approval cutoff were moved adjacent >to (but not past) the other candidate's position in the ballot order on >every ballot. > >So each candidate's score is her minimum reactionary approval relative >to the other candidates. The candidate with the highest score wins. > >It turns out that when rankings are complete this method is equivalent >to the common versions of MinMax. > >It doesn't get tripped up on Kevin's standard example against pure MMPO: > >49 A >1 A=B >1 B=C >49 C > >Does it satisfy the FBC? > > ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
