Re: [EM] IRNR question
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To be more general, let's call ordinary loser-elimination methods 0-elimination(X), where X is the base method. 1-elimination(X) successively eliminates the winners, according to X, then eliminates the last one eliminated. Presumably 2-elimination(X) would eliminate the losers, according to X, then the winners of that, then the losers of that; and so on for any n-elimination(X). It seems that no matter what X is (within reason), 1-elimination(X) is Condorcet. At least it is so for both X = Borda and X = Plurality. All 1-elimination(X) methods should be condorcet methods because the only way to be eliminated is to lose pairwise against someone in the last round. In all ranked methods, the last round will just eliminate the pairwise loser. However, with range/score voting, the pairwise winner could be eliminated, unless the ballots are rescaled. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] IRNR question
Hmm, only kick out the losingest loser. I kinda think there would still be discontinuities, but it might be better. Probably worth trying. Now I just need to code that up and run the diagram code. Dunno when I'll actually get around to that. Has anyone checked what happens to regular IRV under such a system? On Oct 19, 2008, at 2:35 AM, Greg Nisbet wrote: Would Brian's IRNR benefit from an addditional level of recursion? The current way to eject candidates is to compare range scores, what if you modify that slightly? Instead of kicking out the person with the lowest range score you replace that with: Kick out the person with the highest range score, shift the ratings and do the same thing again. You are left with one candidate. Kick this candidate out from the main system and repeat the above step. Just as a broader question, do methods such as IRV, Nanson, Baldwin, IRNR generally perform better or worse as additional levels of recursion are added? Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] IRNR question
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Brian Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm, only kick out the losingest loser. I kinda think there would still be discontinuities, but it might be better. Probably worth trying. Now I just need to code that up and run the diagram code. Dunno when I'll actually get around to that. Has anyone checked what happens to regular IRV under such a system? Hmm, it becomes a condorcet complaint method (and so would the IRNR version). To be eliminated, you must lose pairwise to someone at least once (i.e. when there are only 2 candidates remaining in a (super)-round). It may suffer from the same problems as IRV-BTR ... which apparently has lots of bad properties :p. A disadvantage of the system is that it would take a large number of rounds, with N candidates you are looking at on the order of N squared rounds Actually, a simpler method would be IRNR-BTR. Rather than eliminating the lowest candidate, the lowest 2 candidates are compared pairwise against each other and the loser is eliminated. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
