[EM] STAR

[Forest Simmons]

That would be simpler, but not as diplomatic.

You could initialize the chain with the winner of anybody's favorite
method, but ideally it would be a monotone clone independen method.

Pairwise Dominate is another (more descriptive way to say "cover" ... which
I defined as the opposite of not being Pairwise Dominated.... we want our
winner to be undominsted pairwise ... which can be easily checked as I
suggested by the existence of a short return beatpath to any challenger.

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023, 5:19 AM Toby Pereira <tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Wouldn't it be simpler (and better?) to start with the score winner rather
> than the STAR winner?
>
> What do you mean by pairwise dominate in this context? I presume from the
> context (when you talk about Copeland) it's not the same as pairwise beat.
> Are you talking about covering in the Landau sense?
>
> On Friday, 11 August 2023 at 01:19:30 BST, Forest Simmons <
> forest.simmons21 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Score Then Automatic Runoff (STAR) elects the pairwise winner between the
> two candidates with the highest score totals.
>
> One of the biggest problems with this method is that there is an
> appreciable likelihood that the winner W will be a candidate that is
> pairwise dominated by some other candidate C, which means that C not only
> scores higher than W on more ballots than not, but if there even exists  a
> beatpath from W back to C, it will take at least three steps.
>
> Most other extant methods have this same defect, but almost all of them
> are hard to fix compared to STAR. This fact makes it easy for a tweaked
> version of STAR to become arguably superior to any of these other methods.
>
> 1. Initialize a set S of candidates with the STAR winner.
> 2. If any candidate pairwise dominates the newest member of S, from among
> such candidates add in to S the one with the highest score.
> 3. Repeat step 2 until the set S cannot be enlarged any further in this
> way.
> 4. Elect the last candidate to be added to the set.
>
> Usually step 2 will be invoked only one or two times if at all ... so this
> is not a big tweak.
>
> With this tweak STAR becomes arguably superior to any method currently in
> use.
>
> The only other method currently in use that always elects pairwise
> undominated candidates is Copeland.  But Copeland suffers from two fatal
> defect that STAR does not have ... Copeland is neither Decisive nor Clone
> Independent.
>
> Will STAR proponents take advantage of this opportunity? ... or will they
> pass it up?
>
> fws
> ----
> 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/20230812/fb344028/attachment.htm>