[EM] Copeland//Plurality --- can it beat IRV?

[Toby Pereira]

 I think the problem with these long threads is that there are rarely concluding thoughts at the end, so unless you're following very closely, you might miss the best stuff. Understandably people post stuff as it comes to them, so you get people's "stream of consciousness", but I think it would be good if, once a discussion is dying down, the main contributors then posted a summary of their overall thoughts and findings, and which things they would take forward.
Toby
    On Friday, 28 January 2022, 09:12:17 GMT, Rob Lanphier <roblan at gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 10:06 PM Forest Simmons
<forest.simmons21 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The name might be "Gross Loser Elimination"
>
> The Gross Loser is the candidate that comes closest to being skunked in a pairwise matchup.

Ew, ick, what a gross loser!  EWWW-W-W-W-W-W!  :-D

I only have a cursory idea what y'all are talking about (and don't
bother trying to explain it; I may go back and do more than skim the
messages at some point, but I don't have the mental energy to spend on
this right now).

Regardless, I would love all of your help (everyone on EM-list) in
making electowiki more accessible to people new to electoral reform.
I think it's cool that Forest is trying to come up with names for this
new method that sounds marketable (sorta like "Ranked Robin").
However, my fear is that more names for minor variants of Llull's
method <https://electowiki.org/wiki/Lllull's_method>) is just going to
confuse people, given that Llull/Condorcet/Copeland has been around
for a while and yet hasn't taken the world by storm.

It could be that I need to study some more in order to participate in
this mailing list.  It's been a long, long time since I've truly
wrapped my brain around linear algebra (which .... I didn't do very
well in that subject my first time around).  I suppose I should
probably watch enough YouTube videos such that I've had enough of a
refresher in that topic to where I can follow the topic as fluidly as
you all seem to follow the discussions.

Regardless, we could use more editors helping us on electowiki, and
less voting method criteria or new methods to sort, because we're not
even CLOSE to sorting out everything that other editors have dumped on
electowiki over the past fifteen years or so.  By "help", I should be
clear: we need people looking at existing articles with fresh eyes,
and improving them so that people new to electoral reform can
understand them.  Let's make them as approachable as "Good Articles"
on English Wikipedia (which have a specific meaning:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles>)

Since I'm threadjacking, I'll finish by actually addressing Dr.
Carerra's original suggestion.  Because I've been on this mailing list
for so long, I understand what "Copeland//Plurality" means (and I like
the idea of exploring that chain of methods for criterion compliance).
For those of us that like the Condorcet-winner criterion (CWC), some
sort of Copeland hybrid seems like a promising path toward an
explainable CWC system.

Rob
p.s. sorry if this email seems like I'm picking on either of you in
particular (Dr. Daniel Carrera or [TitleUnknown] Forest Simmons).  I
just saw "gross loser" and it triggered the smartass in me, which then
provided me an entry point to speak to everyone active in this thread.

p.p.s.  In reviewing before hitting "send", I realized I should read
more of the thread.  I see now that y'all are talking about something
which MIGHT be better than BTR-IRV, and in general, I really like
Condorcet-winner-compliant alternatives to IRV that might be simple
enough to get people to rally behind.  Riffing off of Copeland seems
promising, because sports junkies generally don't have an issue with
Win-Loss-Tie standings, and I think the Copeland-esque view of
Burlington 2009 election provides the clearest view of the unfairness
of what happened:
<https://electowiki.org/wiki/2009_Burlington_mayoral_election#Pairwise_results>
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20220128/27e05732/attachment.html>