[EM] Teams

Susan Simmons suzerainsimmons at outlook.com
Sat Jul 10 07:59:49 PDT 2021


I want to apologize for my rush to judgement ... just because the continuing candidate survivor is not the same as the River winner doesn't mean she's not better!

It was wrong of me to criticize ... especially while we're still in the brainstorming stage!

And I like your ideas for the name!

Even if your idea turns out to be a reformulation of MinMax margins, that would be a great contribution ... a description that captures the imagination might be just the thing to knock it's  career off of high-center!

In any case, I appreciate it when people don't punture my bubble too quickly ... like when Chris Benham praised the many merits of a (supposedly) clone-free Copeland that I came up with ... It survived a few glorious days before Markus asked me for a proof that it was not susceptible to "crowding"... thanks Marcus for letting me bask in the feeling of success & glory for a few hours before shooting me down!🤣

Sent from my MetroPCS 4G LTE Android Device

-------- Original message --------
From: Susan Simmons <suzerainsimmons at outlook.com>
Date: 7/10/21 12:23 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Daniel Carrera <dcarrera at gmail.com>
Cc: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] Teams

The separate groups, teams, river basins exist to keep the snake from eating its tail ... that's why we consider only contests between the head of one group and the members of another (different) group. If the head is defeated by a member of its own group, then we essentially lock in a cycle.

This doesn't need to be mentioned in the definition, but definitely included in the faq's, etc.

The most natural place it comes up is in the recursive proof that every head (including the final one) has a beat path to each member of its group.

BTW the fact that the final head has a beat path to every member of its group (i.e. to all of the other candidates) shows that the winner is in the Smith set.

Sent from my MetroPCS 4G LTE Android Device

-------- Original message --------
From: Daniel Carrera <dcarrera at gmail.com>
Date: 7/9/21 11:30 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Susan Simmons <suzerainsimmons at outlook.com>
Cc: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] Teams


On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 8:56 PM Susan Simmons <suzerainsimmons at outlook.com<mailto:suzerainsimmons at outlook.com>> wrote:

Let's take adavantage of Robert Bristow-Johnson's valuable experience when we approach the tricky business of writing and submitting legal language for a ballot initiative.

I think I found a slightly simpler formulation of River. It's based on your "Teams" algorithm but I think strictly speaking we can do without an explicit mention of teams or groups:

1) First, designate every candidate as a Continuing candidate.
2) On each round, the Continuing candidate with the greatest pairwise defeat against any other candidate becomes a Defeated candidate.
3) The rounds continue until only one Continuing candidate remains, who is then Elected.

You can see that I'm following RB-J's guidance of using explicit labels for well-defined objects. Can you confirm that what I wrote above will produce the same winner as River? If so, then here is my attempt to write the above method into legalese similar to the examples provided by RB-J:

All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
(1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
(2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
(3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, the presiding officer shall re-tabulate the ballots in rounds according to the following rules:
(3a) A candidate “A” is said to lose against candidate “B” if more ballots rank candidate “B” above “A” than rank “A” above “B”. The difference between the number of ballots that rank “B” above “A” and the number that rank “A” above “B” is said to be the loss margin of “A”.
(3b) Before the first round, every candidate is designated as a Continuing candidate.
(3c) In each round, the Continuing candidate with the greatest loss margin against any other candidate (Continuing or not) is designated as a Defeated candidate. The rounds shall continue until only one Continuing candidate remains, who is then Elected.
 (4) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.

While this is a hair longer than I would prefer (217 words) I am reluctant to remove the redundancy.

The definition of the method, as I envision it, will be a technical elaboration of your core description, while in turn the voter pamphlet explanation to the average voter will be a user friendly elaboration of the same, complete with faq's, etc.

It would be great if somebody with the time, energy, and vision could start a website....

I am not the best person to lead this. Among other things, I am not a US citizen and it might be a bit weird if a foreigner is trying to mess around with the way an American city elects its leaders. But I could play a supporting role.

We need a really good name with a good acronymn ... ????


MMV = Maximum Majority Voting
MME = Maximum Majority Election
RHV = Ranked Head-to-Head voting
AVC voting = All Voters Count voting
ABC voting = All Ballots Count voting
EVC voting = Every Vote Counts
CEV = Count Every vote

... DDV = Demolition Derby Voting ?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20210710/8b5de63b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list