[EM] River method - a refinement, minor computational evidence, and a generalized IPDA criterion ISDA
drernie at radicalcentrism.org
Sat Apr 24 12:52:02 PDT 2004
On Apr 24, 2004, at 5:49 AM, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
> Def. INDEPENDENCE OF STRONGLY DOMINATED ALTERNATIVES (ISDA):
> Removing a strongly dominated alternative must not change the winner.
> X is STRONGLY DOMINATED by an alternative Y if
> (i) Y beats X
> and, for all Z distinct from X,Y:
> (ii) if Z beats Y, Z beats X even stronger,
> (iii) if Z beats X, Y beats X even stronger,
> (iv) if X beats Z, Y beats Z even stronger, and
> (v) if Y beats Z, Y beats X even stronger.
> In the general case, Pareto-dominated alternatives are also strongly
> dominated but not vice versa, hence ISDA is then stronger than IPDA. As
> Steve already pointed out for Pareto-dominated alternatives, such
> strongly dominated alternatives might be easily be found by a losing
> party and be added strategically to change the winner, which should not
> be possible.
Very impressive. Just to make sure I understand, are you effectively
saying that ISDA means that removing -or- adding an SDA shouldn't
change the results?
Also - I didn't know this, perhaps you did - there's now a very nice
Wiki writeup on MAM:
I'd love to see a similar article on the River; in fact, if you write
it, I'd be happy to help Wikify it, if that's a barrier.
-- Ernie P.
RadicalCentrism.org is an anti-partisan think tank near Sacramento,
California, dedicated to developing and promoting the ideals of
Reality, Character, Community and Humility as expressed in our <a
Manifesto: Ground Rules of Civil Society</a>.
More information about the Election-Methods