Warren (wds) asked if I could be more precise about reason #17.
> 17. It is resistant to the burying strategy that plagues some > Condorcet methods. This is related to reason number 9. The expert on burying in Condorcet methods is James Green-Armytage, who invented a method called "Cardinal Weighted Pairwise" to take care of the problem. When the "cardinal" part of Cardinal Pairwise is limited to two values, he calls the method Approval Weighted Pairwise (AWP), which is very similar to DMC. Any serious Condorcet advocate should be familiar with James' work. For an introduction see http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-July/013432.html or http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/vm/weighted_pairwise.htm More discussion on this is found in the thread which contains the following seminal message: http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-March/015316.html explaining how DMC, AWP, and "Approval Margins" (AM) are related to each other, and how they fit into the family of Condorcet methods, and also comparing their effectiveness against burying. Here's when I first saw the light that DMC was the best Condorcet proposal: http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-March/015418.html I hope that's helpful. Forest P.S. Warren, I did "invent" a few Condorcet PR variations a few years ago when I was first introduced to CPO-STV and thought I could improve upon it. Although I made some progress I didn't consider any of it practical enough to compete with sequential PAV. The other main contributions of mine have been with regard to (1) Dyadic Approval ballots and (2) Lottery methods. You might want to look into Dyadic Approval before you re-discover it. It might be more fun to try to guess what the name means. If you guess wrong, you'll probably have something better than what I did!
<<winmail.dat>>
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
