<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>SPE, not BTR is Ihe correct (and customary) terminology for this kind of elimination, because the agenda (score order) is set before any of the eliminations take place.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>BTR, as in IRV-BTR, is a procedure where there is no "agenda" list .. the order (after the first elimination) is determined on the fly after the eliminations have already begun (which is why BTR methods fail monotonicity), not before the start of the run-off.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The recursive definition was never intended for the public, but only for EM list subscribers and lurkers, to show them that a change of one word ... score to CHAMP (or STAR if you prefer that name) ... could radically improve STAR, making it ISDA compliant
while retaining the monotonicity of Score. It just happens that the one word change makes the definition recursive ... a concept that any EM List reader (or any other educated person) should not be afraid to learn about before their brain fossilizes ... and
what better context for EM list readers than a message on that list?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>To be clear, the intended audience for my messages to the EM list is the subscribers and curious lurkers for the list, not the general public. Like other older EM contributors, I'm trying to help interested new-comers get a better understanding of the
various election methods (both good and bad) and the useful principles for comparing them, by walking them through some of the most salient comparisons. Like the oldest EM members, I continue to learn ... including from young people with their fresh perspectives
and interesting questions.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div id="composer_signature">
<div dir="auto" style="font-size:85%; color:#575757">Sent from my MetroPCS 4G LTE Android Device</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-------- Original message --------</div>
<div>From: Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@gmail.com> </div>
<div>Date: 7/12/21 7:49 PM (GMT-08:00) </div>
<div>To: Susan Simmons <suzerainsimmons@outlook.com> </div>
<div>Cc: election-methods@lists.electorama.com </div>
<div>Subject: Re: [EM] STAR Voting Variations </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif; font-size:small">
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 8:41 PM Susan Simmons <<a href="mailto:suzerainsimmons@outlook.com">suzerainsimmons@outlook.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204); padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>... continuing ...</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Here's another small tweak to create a similar, but much improved method ... let's call this tweak of STAR, "CHAMP."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>STAR elects the pairwise winner between the score winner X and the candidate Y who is the score winner among the other candidates (besides X).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CHAMP elects the pairwise winner between the score winner X and the candidate Z who is CHAMP winner among the other candidates (besides X).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
It took me a while to figure out what you were saying. So... a recursive definition of CHAMP... Btw, what does CHAMP stand for (if anything)? Let me see if I understand. If I wanted to compute the CHAMP winner I would:</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
1) Sort the candidates by score.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
2) Pick the pairwise winner "X" between the bottom two candidates.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
3) Pick the pairwise winner between "X" and the next candidate up.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
4) Repeat.</div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
So CHAMP Is kind of like BTR-STV but you are sorting by score instead of first-choice votes? CHAMP = BTR-Score ? Or have I completely misunderstood?</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204); padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>It turns out that this description of CHAMP is just a particularly compact [and elegant, in the eyes of software engineers] reformulation of Sequential Pairwise Elimination (SPE) applied to the "agenda" of candidates listed from least to greatest scores.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>SPE is a highly respected method that has been used in many kinds of deliberative bodies for centuries, and recommended by "Robert's Rules of Order" for choosing from among more than two options ... two-at-a time from an agenda with the least promising
agenda items listed first. In the CHAMP context "least promising" means lowest score.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CHAMP is clone proof, monotonic, and Condorcet compliant ... what simpler method has this much going for it?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
A recursive method will be tough for most people. I studied Lisp and it was a bit of a curve ball for me. I think an SPE definition might be easier to follow even if it is mathematically inelegant.</div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
If I was trying to sell this to the STAR team, I would tell them that they can even keep the same name they have.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
STAR = Score Then Automatic Runoff</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
There is nothing in that name that requires only one runoff. You could repurpose the name to mean that you Score candidates and then run N runoffs from the bottom up. Boom! Now you've turned STAR into a clone proof, monotonic, Condorcet method and hopefully
created a method that fans of Score and fans of Condorcet can both get behind.</div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
Am I right to think that your method, and any other BTR-* method is also Smith-efficient?</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
Cheers,</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif; font-size:small">
Daniel</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>