[EM] So I got an email... / IIA

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

On 12.04.2022 02:42, Forest Simmons wrote:
> Kevin's suggestion's simplicity may make it the best choice in this
> context ...
> the method where
> each candidate's score is that candidate's first preferences minus the
> first preferences of the candidate who beats that candidate and has the
> most first preferences.
> 
> I suggest the rewording 
> 
> Elect the the candidate whose top preference count most greatly exceeds
> (when greater) or most nearly equals (when smaller) the greatest top
> preference count of any candidate defeating it pairwise.
> 
> In other words, compare the number fX of first place preferences of
> candidate X, and the greatest number fY of first place preferences of
> any candidate Y among those defeating X pairwise. Elect the candidate X
> with the most favorable comparison between fX and fY.

Do you (or any EM readers) have a name proposal for these methods? I was
thinking possibly "Top Opposition", because it's about some quality of
the candidate being evaluated, being compared to some quality of an
opposing candidate - a candidate who beats the first one pairwise. But
perhaps that's too hard to understand. Any better ones? :-)



As for the methods themselves (sum and max): according to Kevin's
simulations, they're pretty similar. Mine has a lesser compromising
incentive, his has a lesser burial incentive. The reason I constructed
mine is that (I think?) it's less susceptible to crowding.

E.g. suppose that A wins (B is the candidate with most first prefs who's
beating A pairwise), and for C, D is the candidate with most first prefs
beating him pairwise. We clone D (so that each clone has fewer first
preferences). Then the penalty term to C's score decreases, which could
lead C to win. On the other hand, the sum is unaffected because it'll
just sum the clones' first preferences up no matter how many there are.

Both are vulnerable to vote-splitting, though, because of the fpA term.

As they're pretty similar, it'll probably come down to which method the
legislators (or public) think is the simplest.

-km