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

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

>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?

Yes, svo & wvo correspond to top-down & bottom-up, with the
understanding that the pair-defeat dropped is the weakest
defeat that's eligible for dropping, with wvo, or the strongest
defeat that's eligible for dropping, with svo.

vo, the substitute for wv, also means the same as the old va term.


Mike Ossipoff



>
>
>
>
>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!).
> > >
> > >*****
> >
> > [...]
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com