[EM] Benham's Method looks best among Smith + CD methods

[C.Benham]

>  You mentioned Chris's other method. Is that the one that does 
> Condorcet, measuring defeat-strengh by the defeater's Score minus the 
> defeated's score...where a candidate's Score is her pairwse support in 
> her strongest defeat?
> That method elects C when B is middle CW, and the most favorite, and A 
> is least favorite, and A voters + C voters outnumer B voters, and the 
> A voters bury B?
> Specific numeical instance of that example:
> 2: A>C>B (burying B)
> 4. B>A>C
> 3: C>B>A

I have this as indecisive between B and C.

B>A>C>B.   MinMax Losing Votes scores:  B4 > C3 > A2.  Margins Sort is 
indecisive as to which pair to flip: B>C or C>A?

B>A  (4-2 = 2),     A>C  (2-3 = -1),   C>B (3-4 = -1).

I haven't put much thought on how best to break such ties, but I'm 
inclined to say it should be in favour of the candidate with the higher 
score.
Here that is B,  the sincere CW.

Chris Benham

On 4/30/2014 10:59 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> Forest--
> Oops! I forgot the A voters' transfer to C.
> So Woodall does as well as Benham in that example. So my example 
> doesn't mean that Benham is better than Woodall. ...But Benham is a 
> lot easier to propose to organizations that use or offer IRV.
>  You mentioned Chris's other method. Is that the one that does 
> Condorcet, measuring defeat-strengh by the defeater's Score minus the 
> defeated's score...where a candidate's Score is her pairwse support in 
> her strongest defeat?
> That method elects C when B is middle CW, and the most favorite, and A 
> is least favorite, and A voters + C voters outnumer B voters, and the 
> A voters bury B?
> Specific numeical instance of that example:
> 2: A>C>B (burying B)
> 4. B>A>C
> 3: C>B>A
> Michael Ossipoff
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20140430/0d1e108a/attachment-0003.htm>