[EM] My CTE post to EM

Sun Oct 8 01:14:55 PDT 2023

There’s good reason to choose Coombs as the “base-method”, the
elimination-method to which to apply CT-.

The use of Coombs maximizes the lowering of the base-method count-score for
the buried CW.  (We haven’t discussed fractional vs whole, but my first
impression is that whole would best deter & thwart burial.)

…making the CW more likely to get eliminated 1st.  …thereby taking-down the
buriers’ favorite (BF), & electing the less-liked candidate whom under whom
the buriers buried CW.

(Let’s call that candidate “Bus”, because the buriers are throwing CW under
the bus.)

That wasn’t the scenario in your example, but BF still lost.

When there’s only one Bus, which of course is the case in all 3-candidate
cases, then whether or not BF wins, & the burial succeeds, depends on who
is eliminated 1st.

 Could there be a 1-Bus example in which Bus gets eliminated 1st, thereby
taking down CW & electing BF? Yes, but, with Coombs as base-method, the
burial of CW is particularly likely to give CW the worst base-method
count-score.  …& thereby the  1st elimination.  …thereby taking down BF &
electing Bus.

So the burial is likely deterred, unless the buriers have very detailed &
reliable predictive information.

I’m not a fan of LNHa, but when speaking of advantages of STE (Successive
Topcount Elimination), one of course mentions LNHa among them.

But, though we need rank-balloting, & STE is a rank-method, & obviously
people who enact STE don’t want or intend to bury their favorite under a
disgusting lesser evil, & though I’d accept STE’s top-end defensive
strategy-need in order for people to have rank balloting so that they won’t
elect despicable POS lesser evils…

…I’m not going to defend STE anymore…or vote for its enactment…or
participate in its enactment campaign…

…because we do such things for principle…

…&, if principle means anything, we don’t condone lying & dishonesty.

FairVote is still using the lie that STE don’t have a spoiler problem.

…using that lie not only with voters, but also to get money from donors.

I couldn’t bring myself to help that lie-based project or its proposal.

Did you know that FairVote is claiming that it’s Condorcet that has the
spoiler problem?

I guess, to borrow from a famous statement, that proves that there’s no
such thing as an unutterably blatant lie.

So, as I said, I won’t defend STE or in any way support its enactment
campaigns.

On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 23:16 C.Benham <cbenham at adam.com.au> wrote:

>
> Michael,
>
> ... there's no offensive strategy for changing the winner from the CW
> to one's own favorite,
>
>
> Say sincere is
>
> 46 A
> 44 B
> 10 C
>
> A is the CW (as well as being every other type of winner).
>
> Now suppose the B voters all decide to bury against A by ranking C second:
>
> 46 A
> 44 B>C
> 10 C
>
> Now  C has the lowest Borda score and the lowest "top count", so if we are
> using
> IRV/RCV or Baldwin  C is eliminated, "taking down" A and leaving B elected.
>
> The "offensive strategy" has succeeded. This is the same outrageous
> failure of
> the Later-no-Help and Plurality criteria that we see with Margins.
>
> I'm not clear how Coombs (or your preferred version of it) handles
> truncation.
>
> Is the "bottom count" Fractional (in other words based on the
> symmetrically completed ballots)
> or Whole (so that truncated ballots give a whole vote to each of the
> bottom-counts of the truncated
> candidates)?
>
> In this case neither version eliminates C, but I'd be surprised if
> examples couldn't be made of
> them also failing those criteria.
>
> You implied that you are a fan of Later-no-Harm.  If that is the case I
> don't think you will find a better
> method than plain IRV/RCV
>
> Chris B.
>
> Here are 3 elimination-methods that eliminate 1 candidate at a time:
>
> …
>
> RCV/IRV:  Eliminates lowest topcount
>
> …
>
> Coombs: Eliminates highest bottomcount
>
> …
>
> Baldwin; Eliminates lowest Borda-score.
>
> …
>
> Any one of those can be the “base-method” .
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Michael Ossipoff* email9648742 at gmail.com
> <election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20My%20CTE%20post%20to%20EM&In-Reply-To=%3CCAOKDY5CU-zc3Y%3DC%3DrFWagy3zVw5Px6KPaULqW89gHdxshRZh8A%40mail.gmail.com%3E>
> *Fri Oct 6 14:33:40 PDT 2023*
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>  When I said:
>
> "There’s no offensive strategy for changing the CW to one’s own favorite."
>
> I meant, there's no offensive strategy for changing the winner from the CW
> to one's own favorite.
>
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 5:21 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com <http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com>>
> wrote:
>
> >* Name of Method:
> *>>* …
> *>>* CW,Takedown-Elimination (CTE)
> *>>* …
> *>>* or
> *>>* …
> *>>* Simmons-Ossipoff  Method
> *>>* …
> *>>* Okay yes, I like the 2nd one.
> *>>* …
> *>>* It adds an enhancement to any of several already-existing
> *>* elimination-methods.
> *>>* …
> *>>* Here are 3 elimination-methods that eliminate 1 candidate at a time:
> *>>* …
> *>>* RCV/IRV:  Eliminates lowest topcount
> *>>* …
> *>>* Coombs: Eliminates highest bottomcount
> *>>* …
> *>>* Baldwin; Eliminates lowest Borda-score.
> *>>* …
> *>>* Any one of those can be the “base-method” .
> *>>* …
> *>>* Method rule:
> *>>* …
> *>>* Ranked balloting. Equal-rankng & truncation allowed.
> *>>* …
> *>>* 1)  Check for a CW & elect hir.
> *>>* …
> *>>* 2) If none, do the base-method.
> *>>* …
> *>>* 3) During the doing of the base-method:
> *>>* …
> *>>* When the base-method’s rule eliminates a candidate, eliminate additionally
> *>* anyone who is pair-beaten by that candidate.  …& additionally any
> *>* candidate beaten by that 2nd candidate.
> *>>* …
> *>>* That’s takedown & secondary takedown.
> *>>* …
> *>>* 4) If anyone becomes un-pairbeaten due to elimination of who beats hir,
> *>* s/he wins.
> *>>* …
> *>>* 5) Continue till only one candidate remains uneliminated.
> *>>* …
> *>>* [end of count-rule definition]
> *>>* …
> *>>* Though it was Forest who introduced the unprecedentedly gamechanging
> *>* Takedown, & applied it to Coombs & Baldwin, the bombast in this post is all
> *>* mine.
> *>>* …
> *>>* Obviously a CW wins if voting is sincere.
> *>>* …
> *>>* There’s no offensive strategy for changing the CW to one’s own favorite.
> *>>* …
> *>>* There’s no need for defensive strategy to protect the win of a CW.
> *>>* …
> *>>* While MinMax(wv), Schulze, RP(wv) & Smith//MinMax(wv) require defensive
> *>* truncation to deter burial strategy against the CW, the above-defined
> *>* method requires no such defensive strategy, & voters can rank all the way
> *>* down to the bottom if they want to.
> *>>>* PS. I added a statement that, for the purposes of takedown & secondary
> *>* takedown, "pair-beaten" should probably mean "pairbeaten according to the
> *>* rankings before any eliminations."
> *>>* …
> *>>* Michael Ossipoff*
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20231008/567856a8/attachment.htm>