<div dir="auto">Oops! Thanks for pointing that out. It convincingly seemed to me that dropping the weakest defeat in every cycle would do exactly the same as the Ranked-Pairs procedure, where you make a list starting with the stronger defeats, skipping any defeat that cycles with listed defeats.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Evidently not so.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The definition that I gave results, as you said, in a tie—even if all the defeats are different magnitudes, & there are no pair-ties.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">So that tie with B & C unbeaten would happen even in any big public election. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Again, thanks for telling me about that. As you can tell, I was so sure that I didn’t even try a multi-cycle example.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">So much for my briefer RP definition-wording.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But RP still seems easier to define & explain than Beatpath/CSSD.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Also, Steve said that the RP winner usually pairbeats the Beatpath winner.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Is River as easy to define &. explain as RP?.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Fortunately, all Condorcet(wv) methods are the same with 3 candidates. So, in my 18 cases with only 3 candidates, my wrong definition didn’t make any difference, with just that one cycle. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But in a larger election, the buriers might bury CW under 2 Buses, making 2 parallel cycles both involving CW & BF, but each cycle with a different Bus.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I hope that doesn’t affect RP’s autodeterence when the right definition is used. I should try that with MinMax too.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">BTW, I added 6 more cases, with the CW faction half ranking BF 2nd, & half ranking Bus 2nd…summing to 4 ways for the CW voters to 2nd-rank:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">CW>BF</div><div dir="auto">CW>Bus</div><div dir="auto">CW</div><div dir="auto">Half each of CW>BF & CW>Bus.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It just seemed to more realistically cover how toCW voters could vote.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That brought it to 24 cases.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It raised the Bus/BF ratio from 7 up to 10.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">There was a journal paper with the words “Split-Cycle” in its title. The author defined Split-Cycle the same way as my incorrect brief RP mis-definition. He said it was different from RP. Ain’t that the truth ! </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">He used margins instead of wv, & claimed all sorts of fantastic criterion-compliances for it…presumably in natural sincere circular ties.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I didn’t know what he was talking about.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Well, with luck, the autodeterence will still work , with the right RP definition in multi-Bus examples.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thanks again for pointing that out to me.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 22:41 Kevin Venzke <<a href="mailto:stepjak@yahoo.fr">stepjak@yahoo.fr</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">Hi Mike,<br>
<br>
Interesting work:<br>
<br>
Feb 24 2024 à 16:39:27 UTC−6, Michael Ossipoff <<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :<br>
> Schulze, RP(wv), MinMax(wv) & Smith//MinMax(wv) are all very strongly<br>
> probabilistically-autodeterent.<br>
> <br>
> I applied them to a typical example with a complete exhaustive set of 18 cases.<br>
[...]<br>
> When I introduced Condorcet(wv), & told its properties, 35 years ago, they<br>
> included compliance with what is now called the Minimal-Defense Criterion.<br>
> <br>
> Because of the possibility of defensive truncation being used, that<br>
> criterion-compliance conferred burial-deterrence.<br>
[...]<br>
> Those methods are the only ones that have been determined to be<br>
> probabilistically autodeterrent by exhaustive testing.<br>
> <br>
> Given that Schulze & RP are widely popular & widely recognized as the kings of<br>
> criteria-compliance, & given the extreme brevity possible for RP, RP(wv) is the<br>
> obvious natural best proposal for a Condorcet-Criterion rang-method.<br>
> <br>
> RP(wv):<br>
> If no voted CW (due to a top-cycle):<br>
> Drop the weakest defeat in every cycle.<br>
> Elect the resulting unbeaten candidate.<br>
> (Defeat-strength measured by number of ballots ranking defeater over defeated.)<br>
<br>
Putting aside popularity or name recognition I tend to think that River<br>
dominates RP due to ease of calculation, whether one performs it manually or<br>
has to write an algorithm. I guess maybe you didn't check River, but I think<br>
it would evaluate the same.<br>
<br>
I like your conception of RP here, which looks pretty easy, but I wonder if it<br>
leads to ties.<br>
<br>
For example, if there is a cycle A>B>C>A where B>C is the weakest among these,<br>
and also a cycle A>B>D>A where A>B is the weakest, do we drop B>C and A>B<br>
simultaneously? If we do, it starts to look like we won't know how to order B<br>
relative to C in the final ranking.<br>
<br>
Kevin<br>
<a href="http://votingmethods.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">votingmethods.net</a><br>
<a href="http://votingmethods.net/cond" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">votingmethods.net/cond</a> (relevant Condorcet calculator)<br>
</blockquote></div></div>