[EM] Does this method already have a name?

[Forest W Simmons]

Kevin,

The approval cutoff is moved adjacent to (but not past) the name of the 
candidate in question.  So it ends up on the same side of the candidate 
name as the original approval cutoff.

Something else:

If we eliminate the word "other" in the sentence

"So each candidate's score is her minimum reactionary approval relative 
to the other candidates. "

then we get another method not equivalent to MinMax in the complete 
ranking case.

Forest


>From: Forest W Simmons <fsimmons at pcc.edu>
>Subject: [EM] Does this method already have a name?
>To: election-methods at electorama.com
>Message-ID: <953869.1178578644182.JavaMail.fsimmons at pcc.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>Ballots are ordinal with approval cutoffs.
>
>The candidate with "Maximum Minimal Reactionary Approval" wins.
>
>A candidate's "reactionary approval" relative to another candidate is 
>the approval she would get if the approval cutoff were moved adjacent 
>to (but not past) the other candidate's position in the ballot order on 
>every ballot.
>
>So each candidate's score is her minimum reactionary approval relative 
>to the other candidates.  The candidate with the highest score wins.
>
>It turns out that when rankings are complete this method is equivalent 
>to the common versions of MinMax.
>
>It doesn't get tripped up on Kevin's standard example against pure MMPO:
>
>49 A
>1 A=B
>1 B=C
>49 C
>
>Does it satisfy the FBC?
>
>