> > > and we've all been groping for a name for this primary voting criteria that > is not this non-American, Frenchie, probably sorta pinko-socialist secular > humanist "intellectual" (did i mention *not* American?) whose heresy is > leading us away from the One True Faith of the Single Affirmative Vote. we > have sects in the One True Faith, some of us believe in the sanctity of the > Two Party System: "if yer ain't fer us, you agin' us. and pass da > ammunition, Ma." > > i don't have a better idea than "true majority rule". but there must be a > better one than that. Warren, i remember you like "beats-all winner" for > the CW. i wonder if the "beats-all method" is a good label. > > At one point I ran a poll to try to decide on good names for Condorcet voting (as well as for Range/Score and for MCA/ER-Bucklin/median-based systems). You can see the results here <http://betterpolls.com/v/1189>. Ironically, there was a Condorcet cycle on what to call Condorcet; the smith set was [Instant?] Round Robin Voting; Pairwise Champion Voting; and Beats-All Voting.
Since then, I've tried to use the term "pairwise champion" for the CW, except occasionally when I'm writing about mathematical issues to a highly-savvy audience. In my opinion, that terminology works well. I do not, therefore, think that PCV is necessarily the best "brand" for Condorcet systems; I think that probably IRRV is good for that (despite the fact that it suggests Copeland as the tiebreaker, whereas I support C//A as the best simply-explainable tiebreaker). The similarity with IRV is a good thing, to my mind, though I understand that some may disagree. Note that if you google "True Majority Voting", you'll find that there was a recent (but now-defunct??) attempt by IRV advocates to appropriate this term. I think that "true majority" is less explanatory than IRRV, PCV, or BAV. JQ
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
