On Mar 20, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Counting: Besides the N*N matrix,
i dunno why the common layout of the NxN matrix is popularly used.
it should be like a triangle, e.g. for the 2009 Burlington election:
M 4064
K 3477
M 4597 K 4313
W 3664 W 4061
M 4570 K 3944 W 3971
S 2997 S 3576 S 3793
M 6263 K 5515 W 5270 S 5570
H 591 H 844 H 1310 H 721
it seems to me that this is far more easy to see the result of each
pairwize race. it can be easily modified to provide <defeatStrength>
(is that what you mean by margins?).
M 4064
K 3477
< 587>
M 4597 K 4313
W 3664 W 4061
< 933> < 252>
M 4570 K 3944 W 3971
S 2997 S 3576 S 3793
<1573> < 368> < 178>
M 6263 K 5515 W 5270 S 5570
H 591 H 844 H 1310 H 721
<5672> <4671> <3960> <4849>
at a glance, this is much better for my eyes than the NxN matrix that
seems common for Condorcet results. if you wanted to sort by beat
strength, the data is right there.
I would add an N array to optimize this.
not sure exactly what that is.
Count each ranked candidate in the array. Later the array will
be added into the matrix as if the ranked candidates won in every
one of their pairs. This is correct for pairs with no ranking, and
for pairs with one ranked. For pairs w/winner and loser, give
loser a negative count to adjust; for ties can leave both winning;
or mark both losing via negative count.
can you be a little more explicit about this? i can't tell what this
"negative count" is about. and why is it needed? i think that the
RP procedure is pretty well cut-and-dried. if it were me, i would
not use *any* cycle-breaking procedure unless a cycle exists and then
use whatever resolution (whether it be Tideman or Schulze or whoever).
--
r b-j r...@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
