my designated count rule

[David Catchpole]

I've got it! We could use a kind of "equilibrium rule" where every
electoral system is used and gets into a smaller pool where it elects
itself, and so on and so on until we have a winner... Any disagreements
(objections to FPP winning)?

On Sun, 4 Oct 1998, Mike Ositoff wrote:

> 
> I forgot that, though it isn't necessary to designate a count
> rule when voting on voting systems, since one's 1st choice
> can automatically be considered one's designation, it is still
> necessary to designate one when voting on anything else, including
> standards for voting systems.
> 
> So I designate VA Schulze, choosing from the Schwartz set
> (But if the Smith set contains more than 10 alternatives, then
> I withdraw the part about the Schwartz set).
> 
> ***
> 
> Schulze's method seems to be agreed here to be the best
> Condorcet version. I believe it's best to measure defeats
> by votes-against.
> 
> The Schwartz set is a nice refinement for small elections,
> elections with few voters (maybe too few, maybe just 1 :-) ).
> 
> Schwartz set:
> 
> 1. A has a beat-path to B if either A beats B, or if A beats
>    something that has a beat-path to B.
> 
> 2. If A has a beat-path to B, but B doesn't have a beat-path
>    to A, then B is disqualified.
> 
> 3. The Schwartz set consists of the undisqualified alternatives.
> 
> ***
> 
> Basically the Schwartz set is intended to do something about
> the fact that in a small election, where pairwise ties are
> possible, something can get into the Smith set merely by
> tying one of its members, though beaten by the other members.
> Not a big problem, but the Schwartz refinement is aesthetic.
> 
> Mike
> 
>