[EM] Losing Votes (ERABW)

[Chris Benham]

On 16 Nov 2012 07:29:52 -0800, Chris Benham wrote:
>
>
>It isn't a big deal if Ranked Pairs or River are used instead of
>Schulze.  "Losing Votes" means that the pairwise results are weighed
>purely by the number of votes on the losing side. The "weakest
>defeats" are those with the most votes on the losing side, and of
>course conversely the "strongest victories" are those with the
>fewest votes on the losing side.

Ted Stern wrote (16 Nov 2012):
 
Hi Chris,

Just so I understand this correctly:

You're saying that the pairwise contest A:3 > B:1 should be weighted
more strongly than C:3,000,001 > D:2,999,999?  Even though only 4
people care to vote in the A vs. B contest?

Ted
-- 

Ted,
 
I now see that my previous terse reply was very bad from the POV of 
*marketing*, something that normally doesn't interest me and seems a bit
premature just after the method has been defined/suggested.
 
But to play ball: Losing Votes is very similar to (but better than) Smith//FPP.
 
In your example the 2 pairwise contests involve completely different candidates,
so why does it matter to you which is the one counted as stronger?
 
But anyway, "locking defeats" in Ranked Pairs in effect disqualifies the pairwise
defeated candidate.  So, is it really a problem for you that in an election with at
least 5 million ballots a candidate with no more than one first-place vote (B in
your example) is disqualified?
 
(It isn't like the voters will be given a ballot with just all the pairwise match-ups on
it.)
 
BTW, the "ERABW" stands for  Equal-Ranking Above-Bottom (Whole).
 
Chris Benham
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20121129/7564cf38/attachment-0003.htm>