Craig quoted this from my paper: >| Pairwise comparison, pairwise defeat, pairwise tie: A pairwise >| comparison uses ranked ballots to simulate head-to-head contests >| between different candidates. Given two candidates A and B, there >| is a pairwise defeat of B by A if and only if A is ranked above B >| on more ballots than B is ranked above A. If the number of A>B >| ballots is equal to the number of B>A ballots, then there is a >| pairwise tie between A and B.
Craig wrote: > >We know that the author should have been defining 5 numbers. Here >are the FIVE categories and Mr James Armitage-Green withheld the >weighting numbers for each category > [1]: (...A...B...) > [2]: (...B...A...) > [3]: (...A...) > [4]: (...B...) > [5]: (...) Actually, Craig, you're right; it might have been better if I had added the following sentence at the end of the paragraph: "For the purpose of a pairwise tally, all candidates who are not ranked on a given ballot are considered to be tied for last place on that ballot." Agreed? I think that most people will understand the definition as it was written, but I suppose it might leave one or two people wondering how the system handles ballots that don't list all candidates. So, I think that I will include the additional sentence above in future versions of the paper. So, thanks for the editorial tip. However, I didn't understand much else in your message; my guess is that much of it is nonsense. I do agree with you that Jobst should write an article (about the River method, in particular), even though you seem to have intended that suggestion sarcastically. (It seems that you don't like any of us very much...) my best, James ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info