The Davison Standard

[Steve Eppley]

Donald D wrote:
-snip-
>The Davison Standard
-snip-
>If some new Other Method produces the same final candidate then we
>can say that this new Other Method meets the Davison Standard. But -
>Until the Other Method people have something good on the drawing
>board, Preference Run-off is the method for us to use in single seat
>elections. 
-snip-

We'll include this in our upcoming poll on which standards and
criteria we each consider important.  

I'd like to see some of the subscribers who don't post as frequently
comment about the Davison Standard.  Anyone see merit in it?  Anyone
agree with Donald's assertion that pairwise methods are unfairly
biased in favor of low-ranked candidates?  (Maybe Borda would agree.)
And how is this "bias" really different from the way Instant Runoff 
helps low-ranked candidates?:
   49: A
   26: B
   25: CB
   Instant Runoff uses the 25 ballots where B was ranked low
   to help elect B.  (good "bias", not unfair bias)

   49: A
   25: B
   26: CB
   Instant Runoff does not use the 26 ballots where B was ranked low 
   to help elect B.  The winner is A, even though 51 people still
   prefer B more than A.

Does Donald have any other standards?  How about "Drop One Candidate
at a Time"?  We can name it "Davison-2" since Donald appears concerned 
about receiving due credit. 

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