[EM] Poll on voting-systems, to inform voters in upcoming enactment-elections

[Chris Benham]

Joshua,

The wording is correct and the English seems plain to me.

You just keep eliminating the candidate that has (among remaining 
candidates) the worst (as measured by losing votes) pairwise loss.

49 A
24 B
27 C>B

A>C 49-27,   C>B 27-24,   B>A 51>49

The worst loss (as measured by losing votes) is B's (to C) so we 
eliminate B and then A  (as Forest put it) "is undefeated among those 
still in play" so A wins.

Like Hare and Benham it fails Mono-raise and I think I eventually 
concluded that it was more vulnerable to Push-over strategy than them.

It has the advantage of being super-simple and only needing the 
information in the pairwise matrix.  It's alternative name is 
Raynaud(Gross Loser).

https://electowiki.org/wiki/Raynaud

In the example I gave above, the three different versions of Raynaud all 
elect different winners.

The worst loss by Winning Votes is A's so that elects C (in defiance of 
the Plurality criterion) and the worst by Margins is C's so that elects B.

Chris



> Could you elaborate on this a bit more? To me it sounds like:
>
>
> while (no Condorcet winner) { eliminate the Minimax winner (!) }
>
> elect the Condorcet winner
>
>
>
> Or should that have been "most" instead of "fewest" losing votes?
>
>
> On 4/8/24 02:57, Forest Simmons wrote:
> >/Has anybody submitted Benham's GLE (Gross Loser Elimination)? Another 
> name />/could be Min Fuss Elimination: />//>/Until some candidate is undefeated among those still in play ... 
> eliminate />/the one showing the fewest losing votes in its worst remaining pairwise />/contest./
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240420/2591e2c1/attachment.htm>