<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
Juho,<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If instead the votes were
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">></span>
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>45: L>>C>R 20: C>>R>L 35: R>>C>L then all the candidates are in the
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>initial DM set, so C is eliminated and then the "new DM set" is {R}
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>so R wins.
</pre>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
In this case Ranked Preferences would elect L. </pre>
</blockquote>
Imagine that this is the first election after the abandonment of FPP,
and you have just unveiled<br>
this result in front of an audience of supporters of Condorcet
methods, IRV and even DSC.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/DSC">http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/DSC</a><br>
<br>
They ask you "what is so special about this election profile that you
can justify electing the <br>
FPP winner? There is nothing remarkable about it, just that all the
voters really want to elect their<br>
favourites." What do you say to them?<br>
<br>
I think it is just impossible to justify collecting the information
that tells us who the Majority Loser<br>
is and then electing that candidate. If I really believed that on
those sincere ballots L should win,<br>
then I would push the DMC(Ranking) method which interprets all
candidates ranked above bottom<br>
(or equal bottom) as approved (and so doesn't ask or "want to know"
the voters' ranking of <br>
unapproved candidates).<br>
<br>
That method is very simple. If the <br>
<pre wrap="">45: L>>C>R
20: C>>R>L
35: R>>C>L
votes are sincere, then the DMC(Ranking) election will look just like FPP
(with the embarrassing ML "information" thankfully concealed).
BTW, DMC(Ranking) is one of the single-winner methods that for what it's
worth I "endorse" as a practical reform proposal for the US.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I hope the readers of this list
will point out any potential weaknesses.</pre>
</blockquote>
Unfortunately the fact that your method is so complicated and such a
daunting chore to operate makes<br>
this less likely.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In principle I think all the candidates should be compared
simultaneously against each others. </pre>
</blockquote>
This seems to be just an aesthetic prejudice of yours that you don't
justify. The traditional justification <br>
for doing it that way is that other ways tend to fail mono-raise. You
haven't suggested that your method<br>
meets that. (DMC does).<br>
<br>
<br>
Chris Benham<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>