[EM] Completion methods for Smith Sets

[Michael Rouse]

I just wanted to respond to Craig before asking about Borda, Nanson, and 
"Crosscut" methods in my next post (I'm going to call "my" method the 
Crosscut method -- at least until I find out who was the original inventor 
-- since it calculates from the top down and from the bottom up, then 
tie-breaks any discrepancies)

At 05:07 PM 6/18/2001 +1000, you wrote:
>Thanks.  It's very clear.  The combined method might have some good
>properties, although it would need a strong argument to convince people it's
>better than some other Condorcet complaint methods.  It's big advantage is
>that it's a good alternative/compromise.  In explaination, it sounds like an
>IRV variation, so it might appeal to the "some preferences are more equal
>than others" crowd, while having most of the positive properties of a
>pairwise count method.

Sounds like an IRV variation? AN IRV VARIATION?!?!? You take that back!

Hehehe, just kidding. I like IRV better than Plurality, but Approval better 
than IRV, and Condorcet-winner/Smith set winner methods best of all. 
Condorcet-completion methods and methods like Nanson's where the winner 
comes from the Smith set are my favorites, and if IRV fans would support 
such a method, I'd support *them*. Even if the completion method was wacky, 
the fact the method would choose the "best" candidate  if possible ("best" 
in my opinion, I should say), and from the set of best candidates if no 
single best candidate can be found, would be enough for me to jump on the 
bandwagon. Any such method is so much better than Plurality that arguing 
about it would be like arguing what color paint is best for a race car -- 
is red faster than yellow? (On the other hand, it *is* a heck of a lot more 
fun to argue than paint colors.)

Is the "Crosscut" method better than other completion methods? If it is, 
it's a difference probably measured in fractions of a percentage point or 
by the lack of a rare, illogical outcome. If it were worse than other 
methods, it would almost certainly be by the same fractions of a percentage 
point or adding a rare, illogical outcome. The only strong argument I have 
at this point is that it's easier for me to visualize (grin).

Mike Rouse
mrouse at cdsnet.net