[EM] "Margin Sorted Minimum Losing Votes (equal rated whole)" candidate in poll

[Ted Stern]

PS to previous:

Since the condorcet winner doesn't have a min lv score, minlv score could
be either 0%, 100%, or 50% by default.

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024, 16:54 Ted Stern <dodecatheon at gmail.com> wrote:

> Chris, what I nominated for the poll was essentially the same as what you
> proposed in October of 2016, but simplified to require no elimination step
> iteration. Just one margin sort on MinLV(erw).
>
>
> http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2016-October/000599.html
>
> ERW means that if A and B have equal rank above bottom, we fill in the
> pairwise array as if it were one whole vote of A>B and one whole vote of
> B>A.
>
> The reason I proposed it is that seeding the margin sort with MinLV score
> in descending order is analogous to minimum pairwise opposition in
> ascending order. MinMaxPO is burial resistant, the property we're looking
> for, and for margin sort, we want a metric that is analogous to approval,
> with descending scores.
>
> If we wanted the *exact* complement, we would do margin sort on *min
> votes*, to get the closest approximation to MinMaxPO(wv) possible while
> still being Smith compliant. However, minmax (or rather maxmin) is not
> clone proof, as can be seen by applying margin sort min votes to the
> example you posted last week:
>
>
> http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2024-April/005616.html
>
> By using minLV instead of min votes, C's minimum score of 18 (with clone)
> is ignored and so the seed ranking before margin sort is unchanged by the
> addition of the clone.
>
> My motivation for the nomination: while margin sorted approval is an
> excellent method, the approval cutoff (what I prefer to think of as a
> preference cutoff, since all ranked candidates are approved) is an
> additional step, requiring either an additional count for implicit
> approval, or an extra mental judgment by the voter.
>
> Margin Sorted MinLV(erw) is automatic, and from my limited testing, tends
> to find a candidate with strong top ratings.
>
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024, 01:17 Chris Benham <cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Ted,
>>
>> I'm not completely clear on what the "equal rated whole" part means, and
>> likely there are some other possible
>> voters who have no idea what any of it means.
>>
>> This is what I think it all means.
>>
>> Voters rank the candidates from the top, equal ranking an truncation
>> allowed.  Then we construct a pairwise matrix.
>>
>> A ballot voting A over B gives one vote in the A-B comparison to A and
>> nothing to B.   A ballot that truncates (or votes
>> equal-bottom) both A and B gives nothing to both in the A-B comparison.
>>
>> But in the case a ballot explicitly votes A=B above bottom, do you
>> propose that the ballot give a whole vote each to
>> A and B in the A-B comparison? (Until I hear otherwise from you, I'll
>> assume this is  what you mean.)
>>
>> An alternative reasonable idea would be for this to be only the case
>> where the ballot votes A and B below no other
>> candidates, and if they are voted A=B above bottom but below top then the
>> ballot gives half a vote to each of A and
>> B in the A-B comparison.
>>
>> In any case I understand that we  score each candidate according to the
>> minimum number of votes they got in a pairwise
>> loss, and order them from highest to lowest.
>>
>> Then candidates are listed in  score order and if any adjacent pairs are
>> pairwise out of order then this is corrected by
>> flipping the out-of-order pair with the smallest margin. If there is a
>> tie for this we flip the lowest scored tied pair. Repeat until
>> there are no adjacent pairs of candidates that are pairwise out of order,
>> then elect the highest-ordered candidate.
>>
>> I am favourably disposed to this, but I'd like some clarification (and
>> hopefully some de-confusing justification) on the issue
>> of how we treat equal ranking (or "rating").
>>
>> Chris Benham
>>
>>
>>
>> *Ted Stern* dodecatheon at gmail.com
>> <election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20Poll%20on%20voting-systems%2C%0A%20to%20inform%20voters%20in%20upcoming%20enactment-elections&In-Reply-To=%3CCAHGFzOTaPTdMnVw7TELxExvM4ZjbAEtaxJWZ-%2Bpcttf4ATXhPw%40mail.gmail.com%3E>
>> *Sat Apr 6 12:33:35 PDT 2024*
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> I'd like to nominate
>>
>> Margin Sorted Minimum Losing Votes (equal rated whole)
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240411/efd5e348/attachment-0001.htm>