<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Kristofer - firstly an
apology, I gave the result for Condorcet//fptp rather than
Condorcet,fptp. The correct results are: </font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> minimax 64%, condorcet+fptp
59%, copeland,fptp 53% (vice 47%).<br>
As for other good, simple methods, I find it hard to say. Lots
of reasonably accurate methods are aesthetically objectionable for
a range of reasons; for instance I think that Condorcet+random is
at least as good as Condorcet+fptp (presumably because it's hard
to manipulate), but no one would be happy to see so prominent a
role given to chance. <br>
'Minisum' - which I think is the same as Tideman's "Simplified
Dodgson Rule" - is almost as good as minimax, but I can't see why
anyone would choose it in preference (it looks rather similar). It
has the drawback of having received little discussion in the
literature.<br>
Copeland,dblv is somewhat better than Copeland,fptp. The double
vote elects the candidate with the greatest sum of first and
second preferences. It's a lousy voting method but an effective
tie-break because it tends to blow up in the face of anyone who
attempts tactical voting. <br>
Copeland,minimax is very good, but again why bother? Its
resistance to tactical voting comes from minimax; Copeland's
method is little more than a sleeping partner. <br>
Copeland//Borda (which is one interpretation of
Dasgupta/Maskin) is probably slightly better than Copeland,fptp.<br>
Benham's method and Black's are both pretty good. So are some
of the more complicated methods such as RP.<br>
<br>
All this subject to the usual caveats about software reliablilty.
The results table is at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.masterlyinactivity.com/condorcet/condorcet.html#results">https://www.masterlyinactivity.com/condorcet/condorcet.html#results</a><br>
Colin<br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/02/2023 11:47, Kristofer
Munsterhjelm wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0af6af1e-64e5-fcaf-7eed-938b10cc8cd3@t-online.de">On
2/18/23 10:42, Colin Champion wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> But then I don't favour Kristofer's
proposal either. My evaluation suggests that burial is a
particular threat for Condorcet methods, and that in its
presence their accuracies are: minimax 64%, condorcet+fptp 59%,
copeland,fptp 48%. [Usual disclaimers apply.]
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
That's fair; I was simply trying to find a minimal change to the
method that would at least grant Smith or something like it.
<br>
<br>
Really, what I'm concerned about is that there's such a, for lack
of a better term, steep cliff from the Condorcet domain down to
the Plurality domain. So everything's nice as long as you play on
top of the mountain, but if you misstep (i.e. produce a cycle),
then you don't gradually degrade, you fall directly into plain old
Plurality, with all of its vote splitting problems. The
discontinuity seems like something that's just asking to be
exploited.
<br>
<br>
Do you know of any alternate "bang for the buck" methods that
would be simple enough to be accepted?
<br>
<br>
-km
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>