[EM] Burlington Vermont repeals IRV 52% to 48%

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

Chris Benham wrote:
> Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote (6 March 2010):
> 
> "Another benefit to Ranked Pairs is that you don't have to confuse 
> matters with WV versus Margins. "
> <snip>
> 
> Kristofer,
> 
> Why is that?!   That certainly is a benefit of  Smith//Approval.

It's not the only method where you don't have to, but it is one of them: 
I haven't said RP enjoys this advantage over S//A, but that it does over 
the methods where you do have to explain WV (or Margins), e.g. Minmax, 
least reversals, whatnot.

The other method mentioned in the post I replied to was Schulze, which 
what what against which I intended to contrast this benefit. However, on 
a second thought, Schulze is kind of on the border. It does create a WV 
matrix (called "d", AFAIK), but it does so explicitly as a part of the 
method, and so doesn't mention Margins at all.

> <snip>
> "For those that like cute names, the WV version we usually call Ranked 
> Pairs has also been called "Maximum Majority Voting"."
> <snip>
> 
> Also "Maximum Affirmed Majorities":
> 
> http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~seppley/
> 
> I think the name "Ranked Pairs" normally applies to the Margins version.
Yes, it does; however, on this list, it usually means the WV version.