[EM] "scored condorcet", etc
stepjak at yahoo.fr
Tue Nov 22 07:29:08 PST 2005
--- Rob Brown <rob at karmatics.com> a écrit :
>Wow no one?
>I'll try to reword since my first explanation was rather rambly >and not
all that clear.
>The candidate with the smallest sum of all losing margins is the winner.
It's not clone-independent. I'm fairly confident that this fails
plurality and minimal defense, as well (which is the reason I suggest
not to use margins to pick the winner). I doubt it satisfies Condorcet
Loser or Schwartz.
> Kevin Venzke <stepjak <at> yahoo.fr> writes:
> > The problem I see is that the best Condorcet rankings-only
> > methods seem to have already been invented. So unless your
> > method is going to be sub-par, you have to agree with one
> > of them for the first position.
> Hmmm. Well from my point of view, not producing scores makes a
> method sub-par. So beatpath etc. are sub-par in that respect....
> But I'm curious....what makes you say that all the best have been
> invented? I sorta figured that if you come at it with a different
> approach (that scores are a required feature), it may provide new
> insights into better methods. To me, scored methods are also
> inherently more "tunable". For instance, you can easily mix two
> scored methods together to "smooth out" their problems.
Beatpath(wv) satisfies clone independence, monotonicity, plurality,
minimal defense, Condorcet Loser, Local IIA, always elects from Schwartz,
always elects from the CDTT...
It'll be very hard to meet the same properties if you design the method
You can value different properties (FBC, LNHarm...) of course, but the
tradeoff should be worth it. I'm not so convinced that it's valuable
for a method to be tunable. I can't imagine how you could really use
this to fix a perceived problem.
Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger
Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
More information about the Election-Methods