[EM] Remember Toby

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

fsimmons at pcc.edu wrote:
> As I remember it, when Toby settled on CSSD, we made a huge
> psychological mistake: we got bogged down in the description of the
> CSSD algorithm for the public proposal.  I think that was a fatal
> mistake, and I would like to propose a strategy for avoiding that
> mistake in the future.
> 
> It was a mistake because it gave the impression that to understand
> the proposal, you have to understand a detailed algorithm.
> 
> Here’s an analogy:
> 
> Complicated Version of the law of refraction: Snell’s law says that
> the ratio of the signs of the angles of incidence and refraction are
> equal to the ratios of the speeds of light in the respective media at
> the interface where the refraction takes place. This is way too
> technical for the average man on the street.
> 
> Simple version of the law of refraction: Fermat’s Principle's says
> that light takes the path of least time. The man on the street can
> understand this.  Snell’s law gives a way of finding that path of
> least time for the technician.
> 
> What is analogous to Fermat’s principle in the context of CSSD?
> 
> Answer: the beatpath winner idea.  We elect the alternative A with
> the strongest beatpaths to the other alternatives.  This means that
> for each alternative B, alternative A has a stronger beatpath to B
> than B does to A.  Once the concept of a beatpath is explained (and
> that its strength is that of the weakest link) then the man on the
> street can understand this definition of the method.  The CSSD
> algorithm is the technical part like Snell’s law,that the man on the
> street doesn’t have to worry about.

So perhaps something like:

An indirect defeat of B by A is one where A beats B, or A beats someone 
who indirectly beats B. An indirect defeat is a chain made of direct 
defeats, each of whose strength is equal to the number of voters 
preferring the winner. The strength of the indirect defeat itself is 
equal to the strength of the link of least value[1].

When direct defeats contradict themselves, indirect defeats give a claim 
as to whether one candidate is better than another. Therefore:

Elect the candidate that, no matter what other candidate you compare it 
to, the former more strongly indirectly defeats the latter than vice versa.

-

It could be interesting to try to make short descriptions of various 
Condorcet methods. The above is quite a bit longer than descriptions of, 
say, Minmax or FPC, but the Schulze method also passes criteria the 
other two don't.

[1] Or perhaps "closest to being overturned". Should one mention that if 
  there are more than one such chain, the strongest one counts?