James,
Regarding the Alternative Vote (aka IRV) you wrote:
"It is used for elections to the lower houses of Australia and Ireland, for
mayoral
elections in England, and for local elections in about twelve American cities."
In Ireland it is used to elect the President. The Irish lower house uses
multi-winner
STV. UK mayoral elections mostly use the "Supplementary Vote". From Wikipedia:
"The Supplementary Vote system is used for all mayoral elections in England and
Wales.
Under this system voters express a first choice and (optionally) a second
choice. If no
candidate receives 50% of first choice votes, the top two candidates go to a
second round.
Voters whose first choice has been eliminated but whose second choice is one of
the top two
candidates have their second preference vote added to the first-round totals
for the leading
candidates."
Of course it is equivalent to IRV when there are three candidates, but is
otherwise awful.
Regarding MinMax in your paper you wrote:
"The winner is the candidate whose worst pairwise loss (if any) is least
bad;..."
You don't define here how you measure "least bad". Later you give this:
"MinimaxTo calculate the winner1. Form a pairwise matrix. Form the
greatest number of votes against x in any pairwise contest, i.e.
candidate with the smallest value in the
This make no reference to "pairwise losses", so isn't it "MinMax(Pairwise
Opposition)" that
*fails* the Condorcet criterion?
http://nodesiege.tripod.com/elections/#methmmpo
N by 1 vector MAXBEAT, where MAXBEATx is theMAXBEATx=max(PM:,x). TheMAXBEAT
vector is the winner."
Chris Benham
Find a better answer, faster with the new Yahoo!7 Search.
www.yahoo7.com.au/search----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
