[EM] STAR is winning CIVS poll

[Michael Ossipoff]

I checked the poll, & Split-Cycle was written-in very recently, after my
most recent check, just a few days ago.

RP(wv) was one of my own alternatives, along with Approval & MinMax(wv). I
wanted to poll about those 3, because they’re the ones that I’d offer.
Approval 1st, & the other two if they insist on rankings.

Now, I’d add Smith//Approval(ranked = approved), because it has the
properties I want, & is especially natural & intuitive. So is RP, but
Smith//Approval(r) follows directly from Approval, &, is a bit more
briefly-defined.

So: Approval, RP(wv), Smith//Approval(r), & MinMax(wv).

Also I’m going to replace Schulze with Smith//Approval(r).

Schulze is much too complicated for a public proposal.

I should have a defined this poll about g
overall suitability for a public proposal, instead of just merit in use.
Can I change that.

Anyway, complexity spoils merit in use too, when the resulting
checking-difficulty & lack of transparency spoil count-security.

The article or paper defined Split-Cycle like this:

Drop the weakest defeat in each cycle. Kevin pointed out a problem with
that.

You can probably find the article by googling “Split-Cycle”.

But don’t bother. Based on what Kevin showed, that method doesn’t sound
good.

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 22:13 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 21:03 Chris Benham <cbenhamau at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> [EM] STAR is winning CIVS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://civs1.civs.us/cgi-bin/vote.pl?id=E_6d34fc1b4ccc480c
>>
>> Are the "write-ins" defined anywhere?
>>
>> What is "Split-Cycle" ?
>>
>
> If it was I who used that name, that must have been when I thought tha RP
> was the same as Split-Cycle. There’s someone who proposes something by that
> name, I it’s definition misleadingly sounds like a briefer definition of
> RP. Kevin pointed out that it isn’t.
>
> Maybe at that time was calling RP Split-Cycle. The fact that it’s
> hyphenated suggests that it was I, because I do that.
>
> Are there write-in’s other than STAR & Score? I’ve got to take another
> look at the poll. If someone wrote-in something new, they should have
> defined it.
>
> I’ll take another look at the poll.
>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240411/008499c4/attachment-0001.htm>