[EM] multiseat pairwise?

Mike Ossipoff dfb at bbs.cruzio.com
Sat Mar 23 08:20:58 PST 1996

I'm going to check it out. Improving on STV in that way is an interesting
idea. I'll check out the consequences of that proposal.

One application of Pairwise to STV is Pairwise-Elimination, where
when it's necessary to eliminate someone, Pairwise is repeatedlyk
used to find the collective 1st choice, the collective 2nd choice,
etc., and eventually the collective last choice. Alternatively,
the alternative with the lowest Condorcet score could simply be
eliminated, without the iteration. I'm not sure which of those
2 ways of using Condorcet--iterative or non-iterative--would be
the better of the 2.

And then there's the "Hallett Elimination" that I spoke of earlier.

Niklaus Tideman has proposed a Pairwise STV that doesn't use any
elimination. It's extremely calculation-intensive, and may not
be computable for big public elections with ordinary-speed
computers. I have a copy of it somewhere. I can send it if you
like. Etiher I'll find the e-mail copy, or, if I don't still
have it, I'll copy the essentials into e-mail from my paper copy.

Also, I can tell where I got my paper (Xerox) copy:

The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1995, Winter Quarter. There's
discussion of single-winner methods in there. Nothing useful except
a definition Simpson-Kramer. In general, you won't find anything at
all useful in Journal articles on single-winner methods, and I
advise against wasting your time with them. But the issue also has
articles on STV, including Tideman's proposal. Tideman suggests
several possible computational shortcuts that could make his
method computable in big public elections with ordinary-speed

Let me know if you want a copy of Tideman's article, if I can find
the e-mail copy, or at least an e-mail transcription of the essentials,
including the definition of his method, & the most important comments
he makes about it.




More information about the Election-Methods mailing list