Markus--
You wrote:
So you say that there is no significant merit difference between Ranked Pairs and the beat path method, that its "elegantly simple & brief algorithm & computer program" make the beat path method a better proposal for committees, and that its brief definition makes Ranked Pairs a better proposal for the public.
I reply:
Yes, that's exactly what I said.
You continued:
However, according to Steve Eppley, there is a merit difference.
I reply:
Is there a disagreement there. Recheck what you quoted me as saying, and what you quoted Steve as saying, above, and then tell me if the 2 statements disagree.
You continued:
Steve, who uses the term "MAM" for Ranked Pairs
I reply:
MAM doesn't just refer to Ranked-Pairs. It refers to Ranked-Pairs(wv), when equally strong unconsidered defeats are dealt with in a certain way, using a random ordering.
You continued:
...and the term "PathWinner" for the beat path method, writes:
MAM may be preferable to PathWinner for a couple of reasons:
1. MAM (but not PathWinner) satisfies immunity from majority complaints (IMC), immunity from second-place complaints (I2C) and other criteria described in the document Immunity from Majority Complaints.
Sure, Ranked-Pairs meets some output-ordering consistency criteria that BeatpathWinner doesn't meet.
You continued, quoting Steve:
2. Computer simulations using randomly generated profiles of voters' orderings suggest the alternative chosen by MAM will beat pairwise the alternative chosen by PathWinner more often than vice versa, and that over the long run more voters will prefer MAM winners over PathWinner winners than vice versa.
I reply:
Sure, and that means something and counts for Ranked-Pairs in its comparison with BeatpathWinner.
I'm not saying that there's no merit difference, only that it isn't significant. Maybe Steve doesn't agree with me on that. So what?
I avoid the BeatpathWinner vs RP merit issue because it's divisive, and because I advocate both methods.
But if you're going to press me on the issue, then I'll reluctantly comment: I agree with Steve that, on pure merit, disregarding convenience, my impression is that RP _slightly_ beats BeatpathWinner.
For the reasons that you quoted Steve saying. And also because RP doesn't let a nullified defeat take part in the nullification of other defeats. There's something especially solid about sequentially keeping strongest defeats if they don't contradict already-kept defeats.
That's really just
an aesthetic quibble, consisdering the excellent criterion compliances of both methods.
I emphasize that I still prefer BeatpathWinner/CSSD as a recommendation to organizations & committees.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
_______________________________________________ Election-methods mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com
