<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>There's been a dramatically democratically improved IRV since
about 1850, it's called the Hare system ("Andrae system", in
Scandinava).</p>
<p>There's been a decisively improved Borda method since 1880. It's
called the Gregory method. It is why statisticians prefer
weighting in arithmetic proportion (Gregory method) to weighting
in arithmetic progression (Borda method). They only use the latter
when they have to assume the magnitudes of intervals in their
tabulations of data collection.<br>
</p>
<p>Personally, I doubt whether pairwise contests are really suitable
for more than single member contests (which are monopolistic not
democratic enough, despite politicians contentions). My limited
experience is that, in single member contests, weighted Condorcet
and Borda methods are in agreement, as rational counts of quite
marginal contests, compared to mere elimination methods, like
Suppementary Vote, FPTP, IRV/AV, which are only ordinal scale
measures (of more or less), not more accurate rational
representations of data.</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Richard Lung.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 25/03/2023 07:17, Forest Simmons
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CANUDvfqKrLZXTe6fXek+s+uC6Mr-iEzaKh26OpACeru7yYAyjA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">1. Let PL be the Pairwise Loser between the two
candidates with the fewest transferred votes.
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">2. Eliminate every candidate that does not beat
PL pairwise, including PL itself.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">3. While more than one candidate remains,'
repeat steps 1 and 2.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Now Improved Coombs:</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">1. Let PL
be the Pairwise Loser between the two candidates with the
greatest Bottom counts among the remaining candidates.</span>
<div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif">2. Eliminate
every candidate that does not beat PL pairwise, including PL
itself.</div>
<div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif">3. While more
than one candidate remains,' repeat steps 1 and 2.</div>
<div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif">Improved
Borda:</div>
<div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="font-family:sans-serif">
<div dir="auto">1. Let PL be the Pairwise Loser between the
two candidates with the smallest Borda Counts among the
remaining candidates.
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">2. Eliminate every candidate that does not
beat PL pairwise, including PL itself.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">3. While more than one candidate remains,'
repeat steps 1 and 2.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Improved Score</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">1. Let PL be the Pairwise Loser between
the two candidates with the least scores among the
remaining candidates.
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">2. Eliminate every candidate that does
not beat PL pairwise, including PL itself.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">3. While more than one candidate
remains,' repeat steps 1 and 2.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Improved Academic Washout Elimination</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">1. Let PL be the Pairwise Loser
between the two candidates with the least GPA
among the remaining candidates.
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">2. Eliminate every candidate that
does not beat PL pairwise, including PL itself.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">3. While more than one candidate
remains,' repeat steps 1 and 2.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Improved SPE</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">1. Let PL be the Pairwise Loser
between the two candidates nearest the worst
end of the Elimination Agenda among the
remaining candidates.
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">2. Eliminate every candidate
that does not beat PL pairwise, including PL
itself.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">3. While more than one
candidate remains,' repeat steps 1 and 2.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Of all these improved methods
this one is the only one that preserves
monotonicity ... which is why it is the one
singled out for a progression proposal.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">But all of these methods are
Banks efficient ... hence Landau efficient
... which prevents the embarrassment of
electing winner that is covered by a loser.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">None of the extant methods
have that guarantee... not Rannked Pairs,
nor CSSD, nor Kemeny-Young , etc.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">-Forest</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://electorama.com/em">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>