[EM] Beatpath vs Ranked-Pairs

Michael Ossipoff email9648742 at gmail.com
Thu Oct 24 11:23:30 PDT 2013

When  say "Ranked-Pairs" or "RP", I'm referring to the practice of
considering the pairwise defeats in order of their strength, keeping a
considered defeat if it isn't contradicted by already-kept defeats
(directly,or by being in a cycle with them).

Additionally, I'm referring to versions of RP that allow equal
ranking, and allow trunction, and judge defeat-strength by

I'm not concerned about how ties ae dealt with, because, publc
political elections are the important voting-system appication, and
ties will vanishingly-rare in such elections.

I've already said some of this, but I'm now adding a little.

In that comparison, Beatpath is easier to program, and somewhat faster
to compute (but computation-time is negligible wth today's computers,
for either method).

Those attributes make Beatpath appealing for organizations.

But Ranked-Pairs is incomparbly more briefly-defined, and makes a lot
more sense, and is more easily and obviously motivated and justsified,
when proposing it to people.

Additionally, Steve Eppley's simulations found that, when RP and
Beatpath choose different winnes, the public colletively prefer RP's
winner to Beatpath's winner, overwhelmingly more often than

In other words, anyone advocating Beatpath over RP needs to explain
why we should want a less demcratic voting-system.

I emphasize that, due to their chicken-dilemma, I don't advocate
either RP or Beatpath for public political elections in the U.S.

Instead, for the Green scennrio, I advocate Benham and Woodall, though
IRV would be acceptable, even though it has disadvantages (previously
described by me), in comparison to Benham and Woodall.

Michael Ossipoff

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list