[EM] Poll, preliminary ballots

[Chris Benham]

Kevin,

> The RCIPE advocate only asks for a rule change that seems modest and logical within the context of IRV: If the candidate was destined to lose *in IRV* anyway, then eliminate him sooner.

Why?   All the IRV non-winners were "destined to lose", and the easiest 
way to identify them is to complete the IRV count. That seems easier 
than looking for Condorcet Losers.

> In exchange, RCIPE achieves quite a lot.

Really?  As a modification of IRV how much does it "achieve" in 
comparison with what it loses?  Rescuing the occasional Condorcet winner 
to make the method a lot more complicated and trash a lot of IRV's 
popular criterion compliances??

I can't see how looking for Condorcet losers is any way easier than 
looking for Condorcet winners.  So why don't we just do that (before 
each elimination, among the remaining candidates) instead?

That method (Benham) is a Condorcet method and quite a bit simpler to 
operate than RCIPE.    So the argument for RCIPE versus Benham is ...what??

Can anyone show us a single example in which RCIPE appears to give a 
better result (or in some way behave better than) Benham?

Chris B.

>
>
> *Kevin Venzke*stepjak at yahoo.fr 
> <mailto:election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20Poll%2C%20preliminary%20ballots&In-Reply-To=%3C815647778.5049429.1713951596021%40mail.yahoo.com%3E>
> /Wed Apr 24 02:39:56 PDT 2024/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Kristofer,
>
> Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at t-online.de  <http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com>> a écrit :
> >/What do you think of BTR-IRV in that respect? Or Borda-elimination? />/Neither explicitly checks for a Condorcet winner. /
> I don't think these are similar. The RCIPE advocate only asks for a rule change that
> seems modest and logical within the contoext of IRV: If the candidate was destined to
> lose *in IRV* anyway, then eliminate him soner. In exchange, RCIPE achieves quite a
> lot.
>
> With BTR-IRV I don't think any IRV fan will be persuaded, as it can't be explained
> why the bottom two candidates should challenge each other in a way that normally
> only occurs in IRV's final two. And if I put my Condorcet hat back on, I don't get
> it either, why it would make sense to arrive at Condorcet that way.
>
> >/Trying not to spam, but I also forgot to say: Copeland-elimination />/should be Condorcet and it works like RCIPE in the absence of any lower />/cycles. (Break the tie by first preference count when there is a cycle.) /
> Sure. I think there is a world where RCIPE is the right thing to advocate, and
> that's the cleverness I see there. But this could also be true for Copeland
> elimination.
>
> Kevin
> votingmethods.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240425/cf6e70d9/attachment.htm>