> > ... On a separate note, perhaps the "covering" concept is too > hard to > explain. How much better is that than simply a single bubble > sort pass up > from the bottom of the seed order? That would also guarantee > Smith set. > > JQ >
"Covering" is at least as easy to explain as "beatpath" and bubble sort: A covers B iff A beats not only B but also every alternative that B beats. In the case of three candidates, the method I suggested picks the random ballot winner if there is no CW. The Bubble sort version cannot be summarized so simply in the three candidate version. In that case, you still have to refer to the social order determined by the random ballot with possible refinements. With more than three candidates, the Bubble sort method may pick a covered candidate. On another note: in the case of a runoff, you can still avoid two trips to the polls by having the voters fill out two ballots ... a strategic ballot to be used in determining the two finalists, and one sincere ballot for choosing between the two finalists. Nobody could benefit from truncating the second ballot. It would also be interesting to be able to compare the two ballots to see how much strategic voting was actually taking place. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
