Re: more on mpv vs. pairwise

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: more on mpv vs. pairwise

Craig Carey-2
Yes, that student of yours was right about that fairness issue.
With MPV only if your 1st choice is a sure loser who will immediately
be eliminated & give your vote to your next choice, only then will
you be reliably helping that next choice beat your last choice.

I don't like methods that don't reliably count the preferences that
I vote.

Are you on the ER list? I don't know if you've seen my definition
of Condorcet's method. Maybe we could write it better. Here's what
I've been saying:

A beats B if more voters rank A over B than vice-versa.
If 1 candidate beats each one of the others then he/she wins.

If no 1 candidate beats each one of the others, then the winner
is the candidate who is least beaten by any candidate who beats
him/her, as measured by how many people rank that other candidate
over him/her.

***

I agree with Steve's suggestion that, as brief as those 2 short
paragraphs are, it's probably just better to talk about rank-balloting,
where we list our choices, and this counts as a vote for our favorite
over everone, a vote for our 2nd choice against everyone but our
favorite, etc.

I believe that might be all most people want to hear, but the
full definition that I stated should be available upon request,
and maybe on the back of flyers.

***

Mike Ossipoff



--