Forest Simmons wrote (12 June 2011):
I think the following complete description is simpler than anything
possible for ranked pairs:
1. Next to each candidate name are the bubbles (4) (2) (1). The
voter rates a candidate on a scale from
zero to seven by darkening the bubbles of the digits that add up to
the desired rating.
2. We say that candidate Y beats candidate Z pairwise iff Y is rated
above Z on more ballots than not.
3. We say that candidate Y covers candidate X iff Y pairwise beats
every candidate that X pairwise
beats or ties.
[Note that this definition implies that if Y covers X, then Y beats X
pairwise, since X ties X pairwise.]
Motivational comment: If a method winner X is covered, then the
supporters of the candidate Y that
covers X have a strong argument that Y should have won instead.
Now that we have the basic concepts that we need, and assuming that
the ballots have been marked
and collected, here's the method of picking the winner:
4. Initialize the variable X with (the name of) the candidate that
has a positive rating on the greatest
number of ballots. Consider X to be the current champion.
5. While X is covered, of all the candidates that cover X, choose the
one that has the greatest number of
positive ratings to become the new champion X.
6. Elect the final champion X.
7. If in step 4 or 5 two candidates are tied for the number of
positive ratings, give preference (among the
tied) to the one that has the greatest number of ratings above level
one. If still tied, give preference
(among the tied) to the one with the greatest number of ratings above
the level two. Etc.
Can anybody do a simpler description of any other Clone Independent
Condorcet method?
Forest,
I like this Condorcet method very much and endorse it.
The 8-slot (including zero) addition ratings ballot idea is clever, but
would it really be acceptable as a public proposal in the US?
Chris Benham
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
