[EM] Symmetric ICT reformulation and exploration

[Michael Ossipoff]

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

For people who are into voting-systems, I can say "majority-beaten", & they
know what I mean...that I'm talking about pairwise defeats.

So, here's how I'd define 3-Slot MDDTR, to the public:

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

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

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

(end of definition)

I'd just call it " Majority Disqualification".

Michael Ossipoff
On Nov 11, 2016 4:39 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/20161112/33812846/attachment.htm>