[EM] Guesses on a few questions in my post.

[Michael Ossipoff]

I defined Condorcet-IRV1 and Condorcet-IRV2, in my post entitled "MMC, CD,
and the Condorcet Criterion are compatible".

Though Condorcet-IRV1 is appealingly more briefly-defined, maybe
Condorcet-IRV2 is better. If there are unbeaten candidates, then I don't
know of any reason why beaten ones should remain in the rankings, for the
IRV count.

---------------------------------------

I said that I didn't know if Symmetrical-IC-IRV improves significantly on
IC-IRV. But wouldn't it? By merely not ranking a set of candidates, you're
maximally voting against them, voting for their defeat, in the
Condorcet-search part of the count.

---------------------------------------

Also, I previously described some small improvements that IC-IRV brings
over TUC-IRV

So maybe the best of these methods is Symmetrical-IC-IRV2.

But TUC-IRV2, or maybe TUC-IRV1, is surely good enough, and more familiar,
and more briefly defined.

Michael Ossipoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20130208/f898af77/attachment-0002.htm>