[EM] Symmetric ICT reformulation and exploration

[Michael Ossipoff]

Yes, but ICT defines "beat" in a wordier way that people hear as
complicated.

At EM, I can say "majority-defeated", because people here know what that
means, that I'm referring to pairwise-defeats. But otherwise I'd have to
say it differently. Here's how I'd define MDDTR to the public.

Majority-Disqualification:

You rate each candidate "Top", "Middle", or "Bottom". If you don't rate a
candidate, that counts as rating hir "Bottom".

The winner is the most top-rated candidate who doesn't have anyone rated
over hir by a majority.

(If each candidate has someone ranked over hir by a majority, then the
winner is the most favorite candidate.)

(end of definition)

I'd call the method "Majority-Disqualification".

Michael Ossipoff



On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Forest Simmons <fsimmons at pcc.edu> wrote:

> You wrote in part ...
>
> >Another advantage that it has over 3-Slot ICT is that 3-Slot MDDTR has a
> much >simpler definition:
>
> >The winner is the most favorite candidate who isn't majority-beaten.
>
> Three slot ICT could be defined in the same way;
>
> Elect the most favorite candidate who isn't strongly beaten.
>
> Neither definition tells what to do when every candidate is beaten
> (majority beaten or strongly beaten, respectively).  But that is just a
> detail of the definition that doesn't have to be mentioned immediately.
>
> Here's a more complete definition that works in both cases:
>
> Eliminate all candidates that are {majority, strongly} beaten unless that
> would eliminate all candidates.  Elect the most favorite among the
> remaining.
>
> So ordinary ICT and MDDTR are equally easy to define.  It's a matter of
> which has the best properties.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20161111/26ef0292/attachment.htm>