Ernie Prabhakar wrote: -snip- > On Jan 27, 2004, at 7:29 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote: > > I like what Ernest writes, though I see a bit of room > > for improvement and suggest "tournament" as a less > > foreign-sounding title (even though its ancestry > > is also French). -snip- > Well, tournament does have the idea of a series of matches, but not > necessarily individual pairwise matchups, I don't think. We could > use the term Instant Round-Robin, which is much more explicit, but IRR > is too close to IRV. :-(
I occasionally use the term Instant Round-Robin, but it's a generic term for all methods that exhaustively tally all the pairwise voted preferences, so it shouldn't be appropriated for a particular voting method. The same holds for the other terms you're considering. You could keep the "Round-Robin" and replace the "Instant" if you're concerned about the similarity with IRV. For examples: Simultaneous Round-Robin Preference Order Round-Robin By the way, I detest using terms like "defeat" and "winning votes" when referring to pairwise majority outranking. Those terms are misleading since a candidate ranked below another by a majority is not really "defeated" and may actually be the one elected. In the social choice literature, a common phrase for winning votes is "the size of the supporting coalition" (or the shorter "support size") where the term "support" is defined in the pairwise relative sense. May I suggest replacing "wv" with "ssc" (size of supporting coalition) and replacing "margins" with "ssc-soc" (size of supporting coalition minus size of opposing coalition)? ---Steve (Steve Eppley [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info