<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br>
</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>-------- Mensaje original --------</div>
<div>De: Susan Simmons <suzerainsimmons@outlook.com> </div>
<div>Fecha: 28/7/21 12:25 p. m. (GMT-08:00) </div>
<div>A: Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet@t-online.de> </div>
<div>Asunto: agenda landau winner </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div id="composer_signature">
<div dir="auto" style="font-size:85%; color:#575757"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:100%; color:#000000"></div>
<div style="font-size:100%; color:#000000">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
We work from an agenda of alternatives listed in order of “promise.” The agenda is “monotone” if increasing ballot support for an alternative moves it towards the promising end of the agenda without altering the relative order of the other candidates in the
list.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
We wish to show that the following method for choosing a winner from a monotone agenda satisfies the mono-raise property of election methods.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
Agenda Landau Winner (ALW):<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
Let X be the least promising (remaining) alternative. Let Y be the winner of this ALW method applied recursively to the agenda restricted to the remaining alternatives with X (also) eliminated. If X covers Y, then elect X, else elect Y.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
First suppose the winner W moves towards the more promising end of the agenda without changing the covering relation.Then, if anything, W attains an unassailable position at an earlier stage of the recursion.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<span>Now suppose ballots are altered only by raising the ALW winner W relative to the other alternatives. We will show that this change cannot result in a new winner, by deriving a contradiction from the assumption that some W' other than W becomes the new
winner.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<span>First note that after the change W still covers every alternative it covered before the change, and W is still uncovered (its short beatpaths remain short).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
Let A be the most promising agenda item. Could W' be A? No, because W still covers A, and the new winner W' has to be uncovered.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
Does W' cover A? Yes, because an ALW winner (e.g. W') must cover the most promising agenda item (when not equal to it).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
Let b1=A, b2, ... bN=W be the sequence of agenda items such that before the change (i.e. the raising of W) the agenda alternative b(k+1) was the most promising agenda item that covered b(k).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
Let a1=A, a2, ... aN=W' be the sequence of agenda items such that a(k +1) is (after the change) the most promising item that covers a(k).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
Let j be the smallest value of k, such that a(k) = b(k).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
Then a(j+1) is a more promising alternative than b(j+1), so a(j+1) did not cover b(j) = a(j) before the change.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
Let Z be the alternative that W beat pairwise after the change but not before. To simplify notation, let V = b(j) = a(j), and let U = a(j+1).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
In summary, U covers V after the change but not before, and W beats Z after, but not before.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
How can this be? U not covering V before entails V beating some alternative that U did not before, but now does. What alternative could that be?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
The only pairwise beat change is W going from not beating Z to beating Z.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<span> Evidently W = U and Z = V.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<span> So W did not beat Z = V = b(j) before the change.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<span>This contradicts the construction in which W covers every b(k) .... (by the transitivity of the covering relation).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<span>This contradiction shows that the supposition W' not equal to W was untenable.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<span>The ALW method satisfies mono-raise!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 8pt; line-height:107%; font-size:11pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<span> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>