[EM] Re: maximum affirmed majorities

[Dr.Ernie Prabhakar]

You should also check out the excellent Wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximize_Affirmed_Majorities

MAM is also identical to my MMV, except that he uses random tiebreakers 
throughout, vs. rejecting conflicting same-size majorities.  Similar to 
(I think Eric's) MAM-d.

Google is your friend...

-- Ernie P.

--
On Jun 6, 2004, at 1:09 AM, James Green-Armytage wrote:

>
> 	I got a couple offlist replies about this, so, just in case anyone 
> was in
> suspense about it, MAM is actually very similar to ranked pairs.
> 	Steve actually compares them way further down on the same page, and 
> the
> only differences he cites are winning votes vs. margins, allowance for
> equal rankings, and a different tiebreaker of some sort.
>
> best,
> James
>
> James Green-Armytage writes:
>> 	Hi, I tried to read through Steve Eppley's definition of "maximum
>> affirmed majorities" (MAM) just now, that is, the definition at
>> http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~seppley/MAM%20brief%20definition.htm
>> 	But to be honest I'm not so great with mathematical language as of 
>> yet.
>> From what I read it seemed sort of similar to ranked pairs, but I'm 
>> sure
>> that there must be some difference. Can anyone tell me the difference
>> between MAM and ranked pairs, or minimax?
>>
>> thanks,
>> James
>
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list 
> info