[EM] Re: Definite Majority Choice, AWP, AM

[Russ Paielli]

James Green-Armytage jarmyta-at-antioch-college.edu |EMlist| wrote:
> James G-A replying to Ted, on the subject of AWP, DMC, and AM...
> 
> Ted:
> 
>>Summary of discussion:
>>Ted (AKA Araucaria) thinks AWP could do a better job of resisting
>>strategic manipulation in some cases, but doesn't think it is as easy
>>to explain to the public.
>>James thinks they are equally difficult to explain and that relative
>>merit should rule the discussion.
>>I think we are two different planes that can never intersect.  But all
>>of my posts thus far have been directed toward finding a strong public
>>proposal, so I can't let the methods stand on their technical merits
>>alone. I can explain DMC in three simple sentences:
>>  Eliminate any candidate defeated by any other higher-approved
>>  candidate.
>>  The remaining candidates form what we call the Definite Majority
>>  Set.
>>  The winner is the single undefeated candidate in the Definite
>>  Majority Set.
> 
> 
> 	Would you like me to give a similarly-simple explanation for AWP? I'd be
> happy to try. Below is a provisional attempt.
> 
> (1) We say that those who approve A but do not approve B have a "strong
> preference" for A over B.
> (2) We say that a defeat that consists of more strong preferences is
> stronger than one that consists of fewer strong preferences.
> (3) If there is no unbeaten candidate, we drop the weakest defeat that's
> in a cycle (e.g. X beats Y, Y beats Z, Z beats X) until there is an
> unbeaten candidate.

James,

I can explain RAV/DMC tally rule in nearly complete detail in one 
sentence: "eliminate the least-approved candidate until a CW is found." 
The only thing left is how to deal with numerical ties. Your explanation 
is a high-level explanation that "glosses over" the details, yet it is 
still significantly more verbose than my explanation.

I'll give you an "A" for effort and creativity, but as I said before, I 
think your AWP method is just too complicated for public acceptance. I 
suggest that you try to explain AWP to several people "off the street." 
See how long it takes to get them to the point where they can explain it 
back accurately and in enough detail to implement it. I think you will 
be disappointed in most cases.

--Russ