Pairwise Vote Terminology (was Re: "Votes over")

[Bart Ingles]

I kind of like:

- Votes-Over (vo) in place of Winning-Votes
- Weakest-Quorum (wq) in place of All-Votes (might be stretching the
meaning of 'quorum', but at least this is more specific)

I assume neither votes-under nor strongest-quorum would be useful
concepts.  If necessary to make a further distinction:

- Strongest-Votes-Over (svo) for a system that immediately picks the top
pairing, and 
- Weakest-Votes-Over (wvo) for one that progressively eliminates the
weakest pairing.

You could probably use Strongest-Margin and Weakest-Margin in the same
way.

Do any of these correspond to previously-used terms (such as VA), or to
particular methods or classes of methods?




Norman Petry wrote:
> 
> Before anyone posts again, I'd like to propose one last change to the
> terminology I introduced last evening.  All of the proposed terms relate to
> the how to process the vote totals in pairwise matrices before applying a
> pairwise method to determine a winner.
> 
> It occurred to me this morning that if we are going to refer to
> "winning-votes" and "losing-votes", that a better term for methods which use
> *all* the votes in the pairwise matrix (winning + losing) would obviously be
> "all-votes" or AV.  This makes more sense than "both-votes", which by itself
> is less suggestive of vote totals, and might only refer to pairs of votes,
> in some way.  Therefore, the revised terminology I would like to use when
> referring to this subject is:
> 
> Winning-Votes (wv)
> Losing-Votes (lv)
> All-Votes (av)
> Margins (m)
> 
> *****
> 
> Norm Petry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norman Petry <npetry at cableregina.com>
> To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com <election-methods-list at eskimo.com>
> Date: February 9, 2000 12:46 AM
> Subject: Re: "Votes over" (Re: [EM] Why Margins isn't as democratic or
> ethical as)
> 
> >Hi Rob,
> >
> >Since you're suggesting new terminology, and I sort-of introduced some bad
> >terminology this morning, I thought I'd reply quickly in the hope that we
> >can settle on something reasonable before becoming bogged down in
> >discussion.  It would be great if we were all talking about the same thing!
> >
> >Anyway, as an alternative to your idea, I would propose that we use
> >terminology that was sent to me by Blake in a private response to my
> earlier
> >message.  His suggestion is that we use the following terms:
> >
> >1) Winning-Votes (WV) -- This is equivalent to the "Votes-Against" methods
> >which only consider the majority side of each pairwise win.  I had referred
> >to it as "VA" in my earlier post.
> >
> >2) Both-Votes (BV) -- This is equivalent to what I called "Absolute Votes",
> >or AV in my post this morning.  Blake pointed out that "Absolute Votes" is
> >probably a poor term, since it could equally apply to Winning Votes or
> >Losing Votes, since these are also absolute.  The idea here is that we use
> >simple vote totals, but do not arbitrarily eliminate minority vote totals
> >before applying the method.
> >
> >3) Margins (M) -- This is the same as always.  Pairwise victories are
> >measured as differences between majority and minority vote totals.
> >
> >4) Losing-Votes (LV) -- only included for completeness, in case some
> lunatic
> >decides to add to the confusion by proposing a method which ignores
> >majorities and considers only the minority vote totals (please don't!).
> >
> >*****
> 
> [...]