Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Mar 5, 2010, at 8:34 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Mar 5, 2010, at 8:17 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Mar 4, 2010, at 1:04 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
...
so, i'm for Condorcet too. i am sorta agnostic about what to do
about a cycle (because i really doubt it will happen at all often in
reality) as long as it's a sensible resolution (Shulze would be okay
if it was easy for a layman to understand, so probably Ranked Pairs
is the simplest, but i might just say give it to the Plurality
winner in the Smith set to toss the IRV haters a bone).
...
i like Ranked Pairs best, too. and if the Smith Set are three
candidates, it and Shulze pick the same winner.
Matters more that it needs to be explainable in a sales pitch. Fine
tuning can wait til later unless there is a major reason why it should
come up front.
Another benefit to Ranked Pairs is that you don't have to confuse
matters with WV versus Margins. I think you have to add half a point to
equals, explicitly, in order to have Margins RP - or have a different
tiebreak.
For those that like cute names, the WV version we usually call Ranked
Pairs has also been called "Maximum Majority Voting".
In matters of fine-tuning, River is somewhat better than Ranked Pairs,
but it only provides a winner (not a complete ranking), and it is less
well known.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
