[EM] Teams

Susan Simmons suzerainsimmons at outlook.com
Sat Jul 10 16:33:00 PDT 2021

We have to be careful about adding connotation  to the word "defeat" in the context of pairwise contests since it already has standard usage relating pairwise victors to losers.

It is more common to use forms of "disqualify" and "disqualified" to denote the change of status from eligible (continuing) to ineligible.

"Defeated by" in its standard meaning is not a transitive relation, but we do have the liberty to include transitivity into our definition of "disqualifies."

Sent from my MetroPCS 4G LTE Android Device

-------- Original message --------
From: Daniel Carrera <dcarrera at gmail.com>
Date: 7/10/21 12:11 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Susan Simmons <suzerainsimmons at outlook.com>
Cc: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] Teams

On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 9:59 AM Susan Simmons <suzerainsimmons at outlook.com<mailto:suzerainsimmons at outlook.com>> wrote:

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!

Oh, not at all! I'm new at this and I like that I'm learning so much from you. So... it seems like I invented a Condorcet method that is not River and therefore has unknown properties. Anyway, let me try again with River. I came up with another way to express River without the concept of teams. I'm trying to present the concept of a pairwise defeat as a transitive property. Items (1), (2), and (4) are template so let me just give you (3) which has the actual algorithm. I also saw a couple of ways to cut a few words:

(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) The difference between the number of ballots that rank candidate “A” above candidate “B” and the number that rank “B” above “A” is said to be the loss margin of “B”.
(3b) At the start, the candidate with the greatest loss margin against any other candidate “X” is said to be Defeated by “X”. All other candidates are said to be Continuing.
(3c) The Continuing candidate “A” with the greatest loss margin against any candidate “B” who is not already Defeated by “A” is now said to be Defeated by “B” and by any candidate that Defeated “B”. Every candidate Defeated by “A” is also said to be Defeated by every candidate that Defeated “A”.
(3d) The rounds shall continue until only one Continuing candidate remains, who is then Elected.

I found it easier to write down River using the "transitive" language than with the "teams" language.

 And I like your ideas for the name!


Though I have to withdraw MMV since that's already the name of a method.

 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!🤣

Yeah, I had one day of bliss where I thought I had come up with an incredibly clever way to write down River :-)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20210710/6f23a398/attachment.html>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list