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

Forest Simmons fsimmons at pcc.edu
Wed Apr 30 12:08:15 PDT 2014


Yes, your description of the method is correct.  However, as much as I like
the idea it seems to have a fatal flaw:

21 ABCD
19 BCAD
18 CABD
14 DABC
14 DBCA
14 DCAB

The losing vote scores (for strongest defeats) are  D42>A35>B33>C32 .

The Condorcet Loser D is elected.

This example also shows failure of Clone Winner.

By the way, I prefer Benham over Woodall for reasons similar to yours:
Benham is more "seamless;" you don't have to compute the Smith set; in
fact, you don't have to even mention it in the method description, unless
you cannot resist the temptation to brag about it..

Forest


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>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
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20140430/440ec8d5/attachment-0004.htm>


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list