Chris, Replying publicly again...
--- Chris Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > Kevin, > I am not completely clear on how exactly that a candidate that has > been marked as "not viable" loses that status. > By overtaking one of the "viable" candidates perhaps? Right. Viability is determined anew at the end of each round, and isn't a requirement for receiving approval votes, so I don't see a guarantee that a candidate, once dead, will stay dead. He could be "scooped up" by small disappointed factions. I noticed that this method will actually preserve some of Approval's ability to drop low utility winners, in contrast to Forest's Max Power method. Take the "weak centrist" scenario: 48 A 10, B 2 3 B 10 49 C 10, B 2 Initial votes: 48 A, 3 B, 49 C. B is not viable. The blocs had expectation 4, 3.3, and 4 respectively. Second round: 48 A, 3 B (half votes for A and C?), 49 C. Now A is not viable. Expectations were 5, 0, 5. But the method doesn't continue from here, so C wins. A's supporters didn't "learn" that A couldn't win. And just as in Approval, if either the A or the C faction approved B (rated him high), they would've given the election away: 48 A 10, B 2 3 B 10 49 C 10, B 7 Now someone other than B is marked not viable, and this causes the hopeless opposing faction to embrace B, which means a B victory (B will be the only one with majority approval). You suggested I find out whether this method is original; I think the best bet would be to ask Forest. If he hasn't heard of it, I wouldn't know where else to check. What do you think of "Gradual Info Approval" or "GIA" as a meaningful name? Doesn't mention the CR aspect, though. Kevin Venzke [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
