[EM] POLL: Ballots and results

[Michael Ossipoff]

Offer RP(wv) to the Vermont legislature. I like RP because it’s prestige &
popularity likely make it more enactable, & because of its
criterion-compliances, which could matter in the rare spontaneous
circular-tie. But, if an even briefer definition is desired by legislators,
then offer MinMax(wv).

I’d offer both, pointing out that RP is more popular & prestigious with the
people who discuss single-winner methods, & might do better in the very
rare spontaneous circular-tie.

On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 00:32 robert bristow-johnson <
rbj at audioimagination.com> wrote:

> Well, there is a reason why I marked Condorcet/Plurality at top.  It has
> the most direct and understandable code to define the method.
>
> But I would agree, as far as resistance to burying or some deliberate
> strategy, Condorcet/Plurality would be more vulnerable to burying than,
> say, Schulze or Ranked-Pairs.  And the latter is more credible as
> legislative language.
>
> I think I can write something for RP that has an initially empty list of
> "defeators" for each candidate.  The defeators of a candidate are those
> candidates who have defeated this candidate and any other candidate who has
> defeated the winning candidate.
>
> Beginning with the preference pairing having the greatest defeat strength
> (in this case, winning votes), first check to see if the candidate defeated
> in that pairing is in the list of defeators of the winning candidate in
> that pairing.  If the defeated candidate is in the list of defeators of the
> winning candidate, this pairing is ignored.  Otherwise the defeated
> candidate in the pairing is marked as defeated and all of the defeators of
> the winning candidate are merged with the existing list of defeators for
> the defeated candidate.
>
> Do this for every pairing in order of the defeat strength.  Then elect the
> sole candidate who is not marked as defeated.
>
>
>
> --
>
> r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
> .
> .
> .
>
> > On 05/18/2024 3:05 AM EDT Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Good luck getting any substantial number of legislators — let alone
> voters — to support it. Understanding will be hard enough.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 8:50 AM robert bristow-johnson <
> rbj at audioimagination.com> wrote:
> > > > Here are the Schulze results:
> > >  >
> > >  > 1 Ranked Pairs (wv)
> > >  >
> > >  ...
> > >  > The Approval voting results:
> > >  >
> > >  > 1 Ranked Pairs (wv)
> > >
> > >  I can live with Tideman Ranked Pairs.
> > >
> > >  Now lets craft some credible legislative language for it.
> > >
> > >  --
> > >
> > >  r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com
> > >
> > >  "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
> > >
> > >  .
> > >  .
> > >  .
> > >  ----
> > >  Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for
> list info
> > >
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240518/bd00d583/attachment.htm>