[EM] Beatpath vs Ranked-Pairs

Jobst Heitzig heitzig-j at web.de
Thu Oct 24 14:15:46 PDT 2013

Dear all,

I'd be really happy if you cared to consider also the River method when
comparing Ranked Pairs and Beatpath. As you cite Steve's simulations,
you might want to look at my April 24, 2004, post
where I discussed their relationship and performed similar simulations
showing that indeed River is a very good compromise between Ranked Pairs
and Beatpath in terms of criteria.


Am 24.10.2013 20:23, schrieb Michael Ossipoff:
> 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
> winning-votes.
> 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
> vice-versa.
> 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
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list