Kevin Venzke wrote: > Thank you. That makes me wonder if Borda-Elimination can be rephrased in > a manner which makes it look more like a Condorcet method. It impresses > me that there's no need for a cycle-breaker.
Note that neither Baldwin (one-at-a-time Borda-elimination) nor Nanson (below-average Borda-elimination) is clone-independent. Baldwin is nonmontonic; anyone know whether Nanson is monotonic? I rather doubt it. Anyway, not all Condorcet-completion methods use cycle-breakers. Although Cloneproof SSD breaks cycles in its procedure, its equivalent Schulze's Method does not. Schulze simply compares strengths of beatpaths, among which there are never "cycles". You can think of Schulze neatly resolving cycles, but only in the sense that any Condorcet method must. By the way, Steve Eppley used to argue for Tideman over Schulze by pointing out that Tideman's winner tends to beat Schulze's winner pairwise when they differ. Recent simulations have shown that Baldwin and Nanson are two of the very best methods in this regard; in fact, the only method I've found that beats them is Arrow-Raynaud (Minmax-elimination), which generally gives very poor social utility compared to other Condorcet methods. I don't find this pairwise-beat measure at all important, though. ===== Rob LeGrand, psephologist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Citizens for Approval Voting http://www.approvalvoting.org/ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info