[EM] Teams

[robert bristow-johnson]

> On 07/09/2021 5:27 PM Susan Simmons <suzerainsimmons at outlook.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Does this simplified formulation increase River's chances of public adoption?
> 
> 

I am neither a lawyer nor a legislator, but I have once "written" legislation that had been adopted into law (by drawing a map) and have reviewed a bunch of RCV legislations.

To get a method adopted into law, you will need to break it down into a deterministic procedure with explicit steps involving well-defined objects: like Candidates, Ballots, Ranking levels (higher or lower), and Counting ballots based on determining some well-defined Conditions.

Candidates will be assigned Status based on the Counting and Conditions spelled out in the definitions.  Off-hand, the status is 1. Elected, 2. Potentially elected (or "Continuing"), and 3. Defeated (or eliminated).

STV has an object called a Single Transferable Vote.  I call that object a "Vote token" but I didn't need the word "token" in the legal language.

In BTR-STV I *did* have to create a candidate status that I called "Greater Voter Support" and "Lesser Voter Support".

> As the "count" progresses some teams are absorbed (one at a time) by others until in the end there is only one big team which has gobbled up all of the others.

So you need to define which team gets absorbed with which other team.  I cannot be an implicit definition.  And you have to define what being "absorbed" is.  Perhaps "set union" or "combined" might be a better word.

By "pairwise support matrix" do you mean that N by N matrix used to determine the Condorcet candidate?  And how is "strongest pairwise victory" is defined?

--

r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.