[EM] Markus: RP & BeatpathWinner/CSSD

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

I'd said:

>It seems to me that the choice of which of those 2
>methods to propose, RP or BeatpathWinner/CSSD, should
>be based entirely on which is more winnable with your
>audience.
>
>I'd propose RP as a public proposal, due to its briefer
>definition. And I'd offer BeatpathWinner to organizations
>& committees, due to its elegantly simple & brief algorithm
>& computer program. I promote BeatpathWinner/CSSD & RP.
>BeatpathWinner/CSSD to organizations & committees, and RP
>for public proposals.

On the one side you write that "the choice of which of those
2 methods to propose should be based entirely on which is
more winnable with your audience." On the other side you
write that you propose Ranked Pairs for public elections
and the beat path method for committee elections. Therefore,
I conclude that you consider Ranked Pairs to be more winnable
with the public and the beat path method to be more winnable
with committees.

I reply:

Yes, that does follow. As you suggest below, the members of committees or 
organizations are likely be more tolerant of a longer definition than the 
public are.
And those members of committees or organizations are
going to be closer to the implementation of the method,
and so the algorithm matters more when offering a voting
system to them.

You asked:

Do I interpret you correctly?:

I reply:

Yes, so far at least.

You continued:

You consider the beat path method to be better than Ranked Pairs
because of the "elegantly simple & brief algorithm & computer
program" of the beat path method.

I reply:

Did I say that BeatpathWinner is better than RP? No.
I said that its simpler & briefer algorithm & computer
program make it a better proposal to committees &
organizations.

I also said that there's no significant merit difference
between BeatpathWinner/CSSD & RP.

You continued:

But you believe that the
average committee member is significantly more intelligent
than the average voter so that the beat path method could be
too difficult to understand for the average voter.

I reply:

I didn't say anything about committee-members being
more intelligent than voters, but I also won't deny
the possibility that that could be true.

But yes, there seems a good chance that the members
of committees & organizations who are involved in the
choice of a voting system are more likely to understand
BeatpathWinner's longer definition than voters are.
Aside from that, the members of committees & organizations seem more likely 
to tolerate longer definitions than the average voter would be.

If you want to know who says that the voters are stupid,
it's the IRVists, who believe that IRV is the only
thing that people will understand.

You continued:

Therefore,
you suggest that Ranked Pairs should be proposed for public
elections because of its briefer definition and despite of
its disadvantages (i.e. not having an "elegantly simple &
brief algorithm & computer program").

I reply:

Isn't that pretty much what I said?

Likewise, I suggested that BeatpathWinner/CSSD seems
a more practical proposal to committees & organizations
despite its disadvantage of not having as brief a
definition as RP.

You could say that both methods have an acceptance
disadvantage that the other doesn't have. I prefer to
compare their advantages. But it could be worded either
way of course.

I don't understand what your point is in that last
sentence that I quoted above. Is it that you believe
that RP has as "elegantly simple & brief algorithm &
computer program" as BeatpathWinner does?

Or is it that you believe that such an advantage
couldn't make BeatpathWinner a more practical proposal to
committees & organizations?

Mike Ossipoff



_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus