> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 18:44:15 +0000 > From: MIKE OSSIPOFF > To: > Subject: [EM] MAM evaluation. Summary of FBC/ABE methods. > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > Evaluation of MAM: > > Forest-- > > I've been looking at various ways of doing Mutual Acquiescing > Majorities (MAM). (I think that was the name that you used). > > Initially I thought it worked, and that it had a better set of > properties than any comparably simple method. > > But then I realized that I couldn't make that method work. > > Any success? > > My definition of the MAM set: > > > A set of candidates whom every member of the same majority vote > equal to or > over every candidate outside the set. > > [end of MAM set definition]
How about changing "set" to "minimal subset:." A minimal subset of candidates such that for some majority of voters, no member of this majority votes any candidate outside the subset over any member of the subset. Minimal means that if any candidate is removed from the subset it will no longer have the desired property. This solves the problem and simplifies the method description since if no other subset is minimal, then the entire set of candidates is minimal. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
