<div dir="auto">What I was trying to say is that STAR is easily fixable whereas Copeland is not.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If you have STAR ballots and an initial chain member C1, you can build an uncovering chain by repeatedly augmenting the chain with the highest approval candidate that covers every member of the chain ... as far as possible.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">My mistake was my misguided attempt at diplomacy ... allowing the top two runoff winner to serve as C1.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Aug 11, 2023, 7:45 PM C.Benham <<a href="mailto:cbenham@adam.com.au">cbenham@adam.com.au</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>I see from the "STAR Voting" advocates' website they propose
using 0-5 scoring ballots.<br>
<br>
STAR Voting it seems to me is just awful. It fails almost every
desirable criterion you can think of.<br>
<br>
It meets Condorcet Loser and Plurality and that's about it. Their
propaganda that it is somehow better<br>
than IRV is very very dumb and/or dishonest. <br>
</p>
<p>Forest wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>But Copeland suffers from two fatal defect that STAR does not have ... Copeland is neither Decisive nor Clone
Independent.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
What gives you the idea that STAR is Clone Independent? It
obviously fails Clone-Loser. Say the score winner pairwise loses
to<br>
the score runner-up. If we add a clone of the score-winner then
the previous winner will be displaced out of the run-off.<br>
<br>
One of the silly things about it is that all the major factions
will have incentive to field two candidates (in the hope of
capturing<br>
both run-off spots).<br>
<br>
Chris Benham<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.starvoting.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://www.starvoting.org/</a><br>
<br>
<img style="display:block;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto" src="https://assets.nationbuilder.com/unifiedprimary/pages/1372/attachments/original/1668651575/Single-Winner_Scorecard_-_Choose-One__RCV__STAR.jpg?1668651575" alt="" width="1000" height="563"><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 17:19:15 -0700
From: Forest Simmons <a href="mailto:forest.simmons21@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><forest.simmons21@gmail.com></a>
To: EM <a href="mailto:Election-methods@lists.electorama.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><Election-methods@lists.electorama.com></a>
Subject: [EM] STAR
Message-ID:
<a href="mailto:CANUDvfoOeBgZAgWiKPFG+UU0fcoDi771ZHHRTmkCEzVx-mLVyQ@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><CANUDvfoOeBgZAgWiKPFG+UU0fcoDi771ZHHRTmkCEzVx-mLVyQ@mail.gmail.com></a>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Score Then Automatic Runoff (STAR) elects the pairwise winner between the
two candidates with the highest score totals.
One of the biggest problems with this method is that there is an
appreciable likelihood that the winner W will be a candidate that is
pairwise dominated by some other candidate C, which means that C not only
scores higher than W on more ballots than not, but if there even exists a
beatpath from W back to C, it will take at least three steps.
Most other extant methods have this same defect, but almost all of them are
hard to fix compared to STAR. This fact makes it easy for a tweaked version
of STAR to become arguably superior to any of these other methods.
1. Initialize a set S of candidates with the STAR winner.
2. If any candidate pairwise dominates the newest member of S, from among
such candidates add in to S the one with the highest score.
3. Repeat step 2 until the set S cannot be enlarged any further in this way.
4. Elect the last candidate to be added to the set.
Usually step 2 will be invoked only one or two times if at all ... so this
is not a big tweak.
With this tweak STAR becomes arguably superior to any method currently in
use.
The only other method currently in use that always elects pairwise
undominated candidates is Copeland. But Copeland suffers from two fatal
defect that STAR does not have ... Copeland is neither Decisive nor Clone
Independent.
Will STAR proponents take advantage of this opportunity? ... or will they
pass it up?
fws</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote></div>