[EM] Condorcet for public proposals - Tounament

Steve Eppley SEppley at alumni.caltech.edu
Wed Jan 28 21:13:10 PST 2004

Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2004, at 7:29 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> > I like what Ernest writes, though I see a bit of room 
> > for improvement and suggest "tournament" as a less
> > foreign-sounding title (even though its ancestry 
> > is also French).
> Well, tournament does have the idea of a series of matches, but not 
> necessarily individual pairwise matchups, I don't think.    We could 
> use the term Instant Round-Robin, which is much more explicit, but IRR 
> is too close to IRV. :-(

I occasionally use the term Instant Round-Robin, but it's a 
generic term for all methods that exhaustively tally all 
the pairwise voted preferences, so it shouldn't be 
appropriated for a particular voting method.  The same 
holds for the other terms you're considering.

You could keep the "Round-Robin" and replace the "Instant" 
if you're concerned about the similarity with IRV.  For 

   Simultaneous Round-Robin 
   Preference Order Round-Robin

By the way, I detest using terms like "defeat" and "winning 
votes" when referring to pairwise majority outranking. 
Those terms are misleading since a candidate ranked below 
another by a majority is not really "defeated" and may 
actually be the one elected.  In the social choice 
literature, a common phrase for winning votes is "the size 
of the supporting coalition" (or the shorter "support 
size") where the term "support" is defined in the pairwise 
relative sense.  May I suggest replacing "wv" with "ssc" 
(size of supporting coalition) and replacing "margins" with 
"ssc-soc" (size of supporting coalition minus size of 
opposing coalition)?  

---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list