[EM] SSD & BeatpathWinner

David Catchpole s349436 at student.uq.edu.au
Sun Jun 4 00:17:33 PDT 2000

I think it's very important that we start branching out beyond the written
word when we give our explanations. Mikes's example is a good one of how
piccies can be a very useful tool. I know that it has sometimes been
difficult to express oneself on this list (especially to certain newer,
obstinate members). Doing more than trying to write emails would be cool,
and I'm going to try it.

On Sat, 3 Jun 2000, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

> If you explain SSD to someone by giving them a written definition
> of the Schwartz set, many people will probably refuse to
> read it. But I defined SSD, using a diagram, and it was
> understood & liked by the person to whom I explained it.
> I made dots, representing candidates. I enclosed some in a
> closed curve and said that these are unbeaten by anything outside
> this set. After getting agreement that the winner should come
> from that unbeaten set, I drew another closed curve inside it,
> saying that that's a smaller unbeaten set, inside the first one.
> I said that, for the same reason,
> the winner should come from in there. So the winner should come
> from the innermost unbeaten set.
> Then I said SSD's rule:
> Drop the weakest defeat among the innermost unbeaten set.
> Repeat till there's an unbeaten candidate.
> (At some point it would have to be clarified that the dropping
> of a defeat can change who is in the innermost unbeaten set, but
> one needn't add that when talking on a sidewalk).
> ***
> All that is quite plausible. The motivation for it and
> justification of it is obvious & natural. That can't be said
> for BeatpathWinner. When you start talking about beatpaths, and
> how to measure their strength, your listener will feel that
> it's all arbitrary. Sure, it makes sense its own way, but would
> he have any reason to believe that the count should be done by
> that rule, out of all the possible rules? Dropping the weakest
> defeat from among those that are in conflict is obvious & natural.
> ***
> The person to whom I defined SSD had never had a voting system
> defined to her, had no prior exposure to the subject of voting
> systems, except for a brief mention of Approval.
> ***
> Under many-voter conditions (no pairwise ties or equal defeats),
> SD, SSD, & BeatpathWinner all choose the same winner.
> ***
> Mike Ossipoff
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
>From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favour fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
					Robert Lee Frost

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list