[EM] Most important/used election methods?

[Richard, the VoteFair guy]

In the Wikipedia article about the Minimax method, the section titled 
"Satisfied and failed criteria" indicates that the "winning votes" and 
"margins" versions are Condorcet compliant, but the "pairwise 
opposition" version is not.

 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax_Condorcet_method#Satisfied_and_failed_criteria

Specifically it says:
"When the pairwise opposition variant is used, minimax also does not 
satisfy the Condorcet criterion."

That seems to conflict with what Kristofer is saying here:

 > El jue., 14 de oct. de 2021 1:45 p. m., Kristofer Munsterhjelm
 >     Minmax(wv) passes the Condorcet criterion:
 > 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax_Condorcet_method#Satisfied_and_failed_criteria
 >     Are you referring to another method here?

On 10/14/2021 2:40 PM, Forest Simmons wrote:
 > I'm quite sure he is referring to MinMaxPairwiseOpposition MMPO, which
 > is very closely related to MinMax(losing votes) but not the same.

So yes, MMPO -- assuming that acronym only refers to Minimax using 
pairwise opposition -- is the method I was referring to.

My point was that although it does not fit the official category of 
"most of the Condorcet methods" (according to Wikipedia), I would expect 
that most of the people who signed the "Declaration of Election-Method 
Reform Advocates" would regard that method as also worth considering for 
adoption.

I mentioned the method because the first steps toward adopting better 
methods in governmental elections require simplicity, and the pairwise 
opposition version is easier to explain (and easier to calculate) for 
non-math-savvy folks.

For clarification, I'm more of a fan of using pairwise vote counting 
than I am insistent that the method must be Condorcet compliant. In 
particular, I would advocate Minimax with pairwise opposition more 
strongly than IRV-BTR (IRV with bottom two runoff) even though the 
latter is Condorcet compliant.

Richard Fobes


On 10/14/2021 2:40 PM, Forest Simmons wrote:
> I'm quite sure he is referring to MinMaxPairwiseOpposition MMPO, which
> is very closely related to MinMax(losing votes) but not the same.
>
> As you know MMPO is an FBC compliant method that fails Plurality and
> Condorcet.
>
> While MinMax(lv) is a perfectly good Plurality (and Chicken Dilemma)
> Criterion compliant Condorcet method.
>
> El jue., 14 de oct. de 2021 1:45 p. m., Kristofer Munsterhjelm
> <km_elmet at t-online.de <mailto:km_elmet at t-online.de>> escribió:
>
>     On 14.10.2021 19:22, Richard, the VoteFair guy wrote:
>     > On 10/13/2021 11:50 AM, Bohdan Andriyiv wrote:
>     >> ...
>     >> Is there a list that sorts election methods by popularity or
>     importance?
>     >>
>     >> If there is none, could you please make one and enlighten me and the
>     >> planet Earth?
>     >
>     > Years ago we tried to enlighten the planet Earth by writing and
>     signing
>     > the "Declaration of Election-Method Reform Advocates", a copy of which
>     > is at:
>     >
>     >   http://www.votefair.org/bansinglemarkballots/index.html
>     >
>     > We do not agree on any ranking by importance, but most of us did agree
>     > that we support the use of the following four categories:
>     >
>     > * Approval voting
>     >
>     > * most of the Condorcet methods
>     >
>     > * Majority Judgment
>     >
>     > * Range voting (now better known as Score voting)
>     >
>     > If we were to update the list it would probably include STAR voting --
>     > because it's based on Score voting, yet it's better than Score voting.
>     >
>     > And I believe it would include the version of Minimax that uses
>     winning
>     > votes -- even though this variation does not always elect the
>     Condorcet
>     > winner.
>
>     Minmax(wv) passes the Condorcet criterion:
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax_Condorcet_method#Satisfied_and_failed_criteria
>     Are you referring to another method here?
>
>     -km
>     ----
>     Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for
>     list info
>