Speaking as someone more from the public than from this list, I'd translate it as:
Take each candidate and put them in a head-to-head matchup with every other candidate. For each candidate, find the head-to-head matchup where the candidate has the most votes against them (even if they win that matchup). Record that number.
Do that for every candidate. The candidate that has the smallest number is the winner.
Seems like a pretty weird method to me. And it doesn't seem like it would always select a Condorcet Winner if it exists.
Curt
On Apr 13, 2005, at 8:16 PM, Paul Kislanko wrote:
"The winner is the candidate whose greatest vote against him/her in a pairwise comparison (defeat or victory) is the least."
If there's anything that's going to keep an improvement in election methods
from being accepted by the people who have to vote for a change it is
language like this.
I had to read that sentence three times and vote on which of the three interpretations was most likely the correct one.
I am not at all sure that any of my interpretations are what the author meant.
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
