[EM] "Mutual Plurality" criterion suggestion
cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au
Mon Jul 30 09:55:58 PDT 2018
Sorry to be so tardy in replying.
Your idea seems fine to me.
On 7/07/2018 1:10 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
> I've been thinking about this property more recently, and I'd like to
> offer what I believe is an equivalent formulation of it. I'm not
> saying this is _the_ way it should be expressed, but this formulation
> helps me see the importance of the property:
> Consider a set S of candidates such that the following is true. For
> every candidate C outside of S, exclude all the ballots that express
> indifference between C and all the candidates in S (i.e. C+S all
> equally ranked, perhaps left off the ballot altogether), more than
> half of the remaining ballots (aka the "relevant ballots"), prefer
> every member of S to C. If there exists an S, the winner must come from S.
> Do you agree this is equivalent or have I missed something? If so, I
> like how this formulation reveals the "majority" threshold lurking
> inside the original formulation, and to me makes the name Mutual
> Relevant Majority tempting.
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Chris Benham <cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au
> <mailto:cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au>> wrote:
> I did have, but that wasn't it. For the purpose of applying the
> test to methods, I think I defined it thus:
> *If there is some losing candidate X with fewer above-bottom
> votes than any other candidate, and all the ballots either
> vote X below all other candidates (or ignore/truncate X) or vote X
> above all other candidates and all the other candidates equal bottom
> (or ignored/truncated), then removing any number of the
> X-supporting ballots can't change the result.*
> Maybe a better version is possible. My idea is that those
> ballots contain no information about any of the remotely competitive
> candidates, but would normally (in jurisdictions that allow
> truncation or voting candidates equal-bottom)) be counted as
> valid, which
> might not be the case if the criterion just talked about "blank"
> Chris Benham
> On 11/05/2018 7:44 PM, Greg Dennis wrote:
> Chris, do you have a precise definition of "irrelevant
> ballot"? Just a ballot that expresses indifference between the
> smallest mutual majority set?
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> *Greg Dennis, Ph.D. :: Policy Director*
> Voter Choice Massachusetts
> e :: greg.dennis at voterchoicema.org <mailto:greg.dennis at voterchoicema.org>
> p :: 617.863.0746 <tel:617.863.0746>
> w :: voterchoicema.org <http://voterchoicema.org/>
> :: Follow us on Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/voterchoicema> and
> Twitter <https://twitter.com/voterchoicema> ::
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods