Before anyone posts again, I'd like to propose one last change to the terminology I introduced last evening. All of the proposed terms relate to the how to process the vote totals in pairwise matrices before applying a pairwise method to determine a winner. It occurred to me this morning that if we are going to refer to "winning-votes" and "losing-votes", that a better term for methods which use *all* the votes in the pairwise matrix (winning + losing) would obviously be "all-votes" or AV. This makes more sense than "both-votes", which by itself is less suggestive of vote totals, and might only refer to pairs of votes, in some way. Therefore, the revised terminology I would like to use when referring to this subject is: Winning-Votes (wv) Losing-Votes (lv) All-Votes (av) Margins (m) ***** Norm Petry -----Original Message----- From: Norman Petry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: February 9, 2000 12:46 AM Subject: Re: "Votes over" (Re: [EM] Why Margins isn't as democratic or ethical as) >Hi Rob, > >Since you're suggesting new terminology, and I sort-of introduced some bad >terminology this morning, I thought I'd reply quickly in the hope that we >can settle on something reasonable before becoming bogged down in >discussion. It would be great if we were all talking about the same thing! > >Anyway, as an alternative to your idea, I would propose that we use >terminology that was sent to me by Blake in a private response to my earlier >message. His suggestion is that we use the following terms: > >1) Winning-Votes (WV) -- This is equivalent to the "Votes-Against" methods >which only consider the majority side of each pairwise win. I had referred >to it as "VA" in my earlier post. > >2) Both-Votes (BV) -- This is equivalent to what I called "Absolute Votes", >or AV in my post this morning. Blake pointed out that "Absolute Votes" is >probably a poor term, since it could equally apply to Winning Votes or >Losing Votes, since these are also absolute. The idea here is that we use >simple vote totals, but do not arbitrarily eliminate minority vote totals >before applying the method. > >3) Margins (M) -- This is the same as always. Pairwise victories are >measured as differences between majority and minority vote totals. > >4) Losing-Votes (LV) -- only included for completeness, in case some lunatic >decides to add to the confusion by proposing a method which ignores >majorities and considers only the minority vote totals (please don't!). > >***** [...]