Election Methods Poll (final draft?)

[Steve Eppley]

Hugh T wrote:

>From:          "Hugh R. Tobin" <htobin at ccom.net>
>Reply-to:      htobin at ccom.net
>To:            election-methods-list at eskimo.com

I'm guessing eskimo's mailserver didn't insert the normal Reply-to
field because Hugh already had included a Reply-to in his message.
Hugh, how about reconfiguring your email software so it won't stick 
a Reply-to in your outgoing message headers?

>One quibble: Despite the disclaimer as to completeness, it is so
>detailed that the reader might conclude that he or she is supposed
>to know what the undefined method "Smith-Condorcet-Tobin" would be. 
>It would be simple enough to insert the definition, as proposed:
>
>  "The tiebreak based on who is "least beaten" should count equal
>  rankings or non-rankings under the following principle:
>
>  In each pairwise contest between X and Y, count as 1/2 vote for X
>  and 1/2 vote for Y an equal ranking of X with Y by a voter, if that
>  voter ranked all other members of the Smith set ahead of X and Y. 
>  Otherwise count the ranking as 0 votes for each.  (All non-rankings
>  count as equal last rankings)."

Ok, I'll insert that (or maybe words to that effect, if I find 
another way of writing it which seems clearer) in the glossary
section, except that the final sentence about non-rankings belongs 
in the definition of Pairwise Methods, not the definition of SCt.  

I'm also planning to separate the glossary section, posting the
report as two messages.

Anyone else want changes made in the report?

* *

The report mentions that commentary message(s) may follow.  That's 
a good place to put your arguments for Smith-Condorcet-Tobin.  

I'd suggest that we post our commentary drafts here in EM and
combine them before posting them to ER; otherwise we'll probably find
ourselves engaging in a long-running technical debate in ER, and that
would be unwelcome there.  

In the commentary message, we could have a list of reasons, pro
and con, and under each reason (or group of reasons) we could
indicate who among us endorses the reason (or group of reasons).  
What do you all think of this idea? 

---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)