[EM] Coombs method and typical RCV hybrid

[Daniel Carrera]

On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 2:40 PM <culitif at tuta.io> wrote:

> I would like to add Ranked Pairs and similarly complex Condorcet methods
> at some point, but I might need to ask for help with the logic behind those
> as they can be notoriously difficult to optimize.
>
> Thanks for your suggestion of the River method. I haven't actually given
> it much of a look before. I'd suggest we make a poll to see which methods
> people think would be most important to add to the site, but I have a
> feeling we'd end up stuck arguing about how to conduct that poll before
> ever actually doing the poll :P
>

Ha ha. :-)

Yeah, RP is notoriously expensive. It was my favorite method until I
discovered River. RP is very strong and I find it a million times more
intuitive than Schulze, which is its best known competitor. I suspect that
you'll get a lot of buy-in for River in this list. Yes, it is less widely
known but I think everyone in this list would love to fix that. It has
nearly the same intuition as RP but it is vastly cheaper (computationally),
and if I recall correctly, it meets all the criteria of RP and Schulze plus
one more... I forget which one... Maybe independence of Pareto-dominated
alternatives.

So... if you like RP but you find it slow... River is its faster, better,
but obscure cousin.




> I appreciate you showing interest in the work so far though. It makes me
> want to continue with the project. I just purchased the domain
> votevote.page so hopefully it can have a proper home soon!
>

Yeah, it looks great. Kudos to you. One little detail that I like is that
you say "Coomb's RCV" , "Culi's RCV", etc. As you might know, some of us
are frustrated that the IRV folk have tried to appropriate the "ranked
choice" language, as if theirs was the only election method with ranked
ballots. Honestly, if any method was to appropriate the name RCV it should
be Copeland because it's the older method. Anway, by adding language like
"Coomb's RCV" it sends the message "yeah, this is also RCV, it's a
different (better) one". So it helps chisel away at the "RCV = IRV" idea.

Would you consider replacing "Standard RCV" with something other than
"Standard"? Maybe "IRV RCV" or "Australia RCV" or whatever.

Cheers,
-- 
Dr. Daniel Carrera
Postdoctoral Research Associate
Iowa State University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20220122/c202bcfe/attachment-0001.html>