[EM] MAM-d vs. The River

Markus Schulze markus.schulze at alumni.tu-berlin.de
Fri Apr 16 16:46:02 PDT 2004


Hallo,

unlike the ranked pairs method, the river method satisfies
Steve Eppley's "independence from Pareto-dominated alternatives"
(IPDA).

******

> Clone independence might depend on how he handles
> same-size majorities.

I guess with the random voter hierarchy also the
river method satisfies independence of clones.

******

> I would like some reassurance (in the form of a proof)
> that it satisfies Minimal Defense and Truncation
> Resistance.

The river method has the following property: When candidate A
pairwise beats candidate B then candidate B cannot be elected
unless there is a directed path from candidate B to candidate A
whose weakest link is at least as strong as the pairwise
defeat A:B.

Proof: When you get to the point where you have to decide
whether A:B has to be locked or skipped, A:B has to be skipped
only when (1) locking A:B would create a directed cycle or
(2) already another pairwise defeat X:B has been locked.
In the first case, there must have been a directed path from
candidate B to candidate A whose weakest link is at least as
strong as the pairwise defeat A:B. In the latter case, candidate B
cannot be elected anymore.

With these considerations, it is easy to see that the river method
satisfies the defensive strategy criteria of Steve Eppley's website.

Markus Schulze



More information about the Election-Methods mailing list