<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>What is the difference between "least extra votes" and MinMax(margins)? Isn't "least extra votes" pretty much the definition of MinMax(margins)? (assuming that the extra votes rank the candidate in question first)</div><div><br></div><div>Juho</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On 22.6.2011, at 10.28, Jameson Quinn wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">My impression was that the "remember Toby" thread(s) was (were) inclining towards advocating simpler systems than CSSD. I heard more support for C//A, minimax, and SODA.<div><br></div><div>Separately, I agree that it's best to describe a system by focusing on the outcome rather than the procedure. The difference is not so large for C//A and SODA; for minimax, though, that inclines one to the "least extra votes" description. (Although with a covering Smith set > 4, this is not technically identical to minimax, I'm happy to ignore that difference, or even to actually use the "least extra votes" system instead of minimax.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>JQ<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/6/21 <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fsimmons@pcc.edu" target="_blank">fsimmons@pcc.edu</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
As I remember it, when Toby settled on CSSD, we made a huge psychological mistake: we got bogged<br>
down in the description of the CSSD algorithm for the public proposal. I think that was a fatal mistake,<br>
and I would like to propose a strategy for avoiding that mistake in the future.<br>
<br>
It was a mistake because it gave the impression that to understand the proposal, you have to<br>
understand a detailed algorithm.<br>
<br>
Here’s an analogy:<br>
<br>
Complicated Version of the law of refraction:<br>
Snell’s law says that the ratio of the signs of the angles of incidence and refraction are equal to the<br>
ratios of the speeds of light in the respective media at the interface where the refraction takes place.<br>
This is way too technical for the average man on the street.<br>
<br>
Simple version of the law of refraction: Fermat’s Principle's says that light takes the path of least time.<br>
The man on the street can understand this. Snell’s law gives a way of finding that path of least time for<br>
the technician.<br>
<br>
What is analogous to Fermat’s principle in the context of CSSD?<br>
<br>
Answer: the beatpath winner idea. We elect the alternative A with the strongest beatpaths to the other<br>
alternatives. This means that for each alternative B, alternative A has a stronger beatpath to B than B<br>
does to A. Once the concept of a beatpath is explained (and that its strength is that of the weakest link)<br>
then the man on the street can understand this definition of the method. The CSSD algorithm is the<br>
technical part like Snell’s law,that the man on the street doesn’t have to worry about.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="http://electorama.com/em" target="_blank">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
</blockquote></div><br>
</div>
----<br>Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="http://electorama.com/em">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>