[EM] Throwing my hat into the ring, possibly to get trampled

[Kevin Venzke]

Hi Nicholas,

I think that your basic method (page 2 of html version) is the same as 

QLTD:
http://www.mcdougall.org.uk/VM/ISSUE6/P4.HTM

I say this because the multiplier is expressed in terms of ranking slots
and a candidate is allowed to win with only part of a subsequent slot
instead of only in increments of entire slots.


So your full method is what I would call "QLTD elimination" because you
repeatedly eliminate the QLTD loser. (Hopefully I haven't misunderstood 

the definition.)


Elimination+Recalculation methods are bad for monotonicity because the 

way information can be used for or against candidates is usually not 

predictable. It would need to be quite clear how other candidates will 

fare when another candidate is eliminated.

Participation is satisfied by simple point scoring methods. I doubt it is
compatible with elimination+recalculations. The problem is that you need
to guarantee each voter that information will only work in certain ways,
but eliminations tend to have chaotic results.


______________________________
> De : Nicholas Buckner <nlborlcl at gmail.com>
>À : Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at lavabit.com> 
>Cc : election-methods at lists.electorama.com 
>Envoyé le : Samedi 9 juin 2012 4h04
>Objet : Re: [EM] Throwing my hat into the ring, possibly to get trampled
> 
>Thank you for that information. I thought IIA referred to adding of
>irrelevant alternatives, not removing them. As a consequence I didn't
>look as strongly at criterions I thought were incompatible, from the
>Condorcet criterion group.

Basically adding them is a problem if removing them is. If there are only two
candidates A and B and you add a new candidate C, and change the winner from 

A to B, then you could also take the new situation, and remove C from it, and
thereby change the winner from B to A.

You wrote originally "I developed an alternative method that takes the 

Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives path over the Condorcet path." Do you
know that we don't have *any* serious rank methods that satisfy IIA? For
example, STV doesn't satisfy it either.

Kevin