Let's rename Smith-Condorcet

[Steve Eppley]

Hugh T wrote:
>"Instant Majority" seems to imply that the winner will have a
>majority.  The question is, a majority of what?  Only if we mean "a
>majority in at least one pairwise race (excluding equal rankings
>from the denominator)" can we say that Smith//Condorcet guarantees
>that the winner will have a "majority".

The accompanying description of IM would presumably say that the
method will identify the majority in each of the possible 2-candidate 
pairings, etc.

>(One might even quibble that tied pairwise races could elect a
>candidate who does not have a majority in any race.)
-snip-

A name doesn't have to be perfect to be better than S-C.  Looking for 
a perfect name is like searching for the holy grail.

>     When I earlier suggested that the use of "majority" in the
>statement of the so-called "Majority Rule" criterion was ambiguous,
>it was courteously explained to me that it clearly meant a majority
>of the total voters casting ballots, and it was pointed out that the
>more basic criterion requiring election of the Condorcet winner, if
>any, was not about majority rule.

I'd say that electing the beats-all candidate, if there is one, 
certainly is about majority rule.

-snip-
>However, the relationship between this feature and the term "Instant
>Majority" is too attenuated to enable supporters of S//C to defend
>that name against the charge that either the name is misleading or
>the system is ineffective to deliver what it promises.  IRO
>supporters will pose examples and say, "where is your Instant
>Majority?"

I think the relationship between majority and S//C is much stronger
than does Hugh.

>To many, "Instant Majority" may imply a vote-transfer method by
>which candidates' totals are increased through elimination of other
>candidates, until someone has a majority.  The use of "instant"
>connotes an iterative process that is being compressed.  

I can imagine some people who have heard about transfer methods 
thinking IM might be a transfer method because of the word "majority" 
or a familiarity with "Instant Runoff."  I don't feel the word 
"instant" connotes iteration, however.

>The proposed name does not imply use of pairwise counts, much less
>the [EM] tiebreaker.  It may be asking too much of a pithy name to
>cover the latter, but if we are to improve on use of proper names,
>it seems we should choose a name that implies that the beats-each
>winner, if any, will be elected.

Can you do that with a simple name?

About a year ago I used the acronym RBTP: ranked ballots tallied 
pairwise.  The problem, of course, is that there are many pairwise 
methods.

>I would suggest avoiding "Instant"; it smacks of commercial hype --
>"instant winner" is what you are not after you scratch some
>sweepstakes promotion card, and there is a risk that puritanical
>types will associate the method with instant gratification, to be
>contrasted with primaries or runoffs where one must earn victory.

I agree this detracts from the appeal of IM.

>Incidentally, the abbreviation "IM" means "International Master" to
>chessplayers (this is the category below Grandmaster -- very good,
>but not the best).

GM suggests General Motors.  Good, but not the best.  :-)

>I was loathe to suggest my feeble attempts at a catchy acronym, but
>am emboldened by Rob Lanphier's efforts.  "Undefeated or Lowest
>Total Reached by Adversary" could be "ULTRA" -- I know this is not
>quite technically accurate. "Beats All or Least Loss by Opponent's
>Total" could be "BALLOT". I am sure others can do better. 

I think that if an acronym is used, it's still important that the 
expanded version not put off the listener.

How about "Near Perfect"?

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