[EM] Sum-up for Ranked Pairs

[LAYTON Craig]

Rob wrote:

>One reason the beatpath idea appeals to me so much, despite the fact that
it's
>not obviously optimal, is that it's so simple.  It may not be as intuitive
as
>Ranked Pairs to the average voter, but to me it's mathematically more
>aesthetically pleasing, whatever that means.  There may be a Condorcet
>completion method that satisfies the same criteria and is better on SU, but
>somehow I doubt it.  Maybe it's my theoretical computer science training
>(networks and graph theory, etc.), but to me beatpaths seem like the most
>natural (smoothest?) way to resolve Condorcet paradoxes.  If Ranked Pairs
were
>as simple to implement and had the same intuitive appeal, I'd support it
>despite its apparent SU disadvantage.

I do believe that there is a certain intuitive appeal for Ranked Pairs.  A
basic idea in Path Voting (and by extension SSD) is that if there is a
majority path from A to B (A>C>F>B), the assumption is that this is a reason
not to elect B.  I belive that this assumption is warranted, but it does not
necessarily follow that there is a reason not to elect B over A.  The only
assumptions I would make from that infomation is that there is a reason to
elect A over C, a reason to elect C over F, and a reason to elect F over B.
Each of these majorities is quite likely made up of different people, some
of whom might not appreciate their vote for C over F being used to elect A
over B.

I see the Beat Path proceedure as slightly counter-intuitive.  So, while
Path Voting might be a little more mathematically smooth than Ranked Pairs,
it is a bit more logically kinky.