Hi, --- En date de : Jeu 8.4.10, robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com> a écrit : > Juho just explained it, so now i know (earlier i had > wondered if "margins" was a normalized or percentage beat > strength). i've always thought that the Tideman RP was > *only* framed in terms of margins. i do not know why > anyone would back the "winning votes" metric for beat > strength.
I would say this is more common than not in the history of this list. There are arguments dealing with strategic incentives, and risk of disaster. (There is on the other side the argument that margins allows full ranking while WV encourages truncation, but I think when voters actually do (full-rank) they will find themselves playing chicken in how each side ranks the main opposition.) Using margins fails Plurality (example: 7 A>B, 5 B, 8 C elects A instead of B). Plurality basically says that A can't possibly be a better alternative than C. I more or less despise the election of A in this scenario: 49 A 24 B 27 C>B I believe the possibility of this outcome is a disincentive for a candidate like C to run. Fundamentally, if I said only one thing: I don't believe that the margins ranking of defeat strength (resulting from its treatment of unranked candidates) is in agreement with what voters would expect and want. Kevin Venzke ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info