[EM] A Chicken Proof, Monotonic Method
fsimmons at pcc.edu
Thu Apr 17 16:34:54 PDT 2014
Michael, yes, Banks is a subset of Landau which is a subset of Smith. A
candidate is in Banks if she is at the head of a maximal chain linearly
ordered by pairwise defeats. [ Each candidate in such a chain beats all of
the candidates below it and is beaten by all of the candidates above it. A
maximal chain cannot be extended upward.]
I could derive all of the properties of this method from scratch, but to
save time I'm going to look up Jobst's original entry on it in the archives.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 5:41 AM, Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>wrote:
> I haven't yet found a definition of the Banks set that I understand. Is
> the Banks set a subset of the Smith set. If so, then, from what you said,
> Jobst's method meets Smith, which means that it meets MMC.
> Then, it has what I consider to be the important properties of Benham and
> MMC + CD + Condorcet.
> ...with the added bonus of avoiding criticism about the possibility of
> Clone Independence is another bonus. Benham and Woodall meet Clone
> Independence too, don't they?
> So my question is: Are all Banks set members also members of the Smith
> set? Does Jobst's method meet Smith?
> What is the name of Jobst's method?
> Is it right to say that a ballot implicitly approves a candidate if it
> doesn't bottom-rank hir?
> (Where a ballot bottom ranks a candidate if it doesn't rank her over
> anyone, and ranks someone over hir)
> What is the name of that method introduced by Jobst? Is "Chain-Climbing"
> its name?
> Michael Ossipoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods