[EM] IRV fails Later-No-Harm

Chris Benham wrote: "Later-no-harm: Adding a later preference to a ballot should not harm any candidate already listed". In other words, if a method meets Later-no-harm then voters can never get an advantage by truncating. It is met by IRV, but is incompatible with Condorcet. I got this from w

[EM] Retraction about IRV, Brams, and Later-No-Harm

What Brams showed was that, contrary to the frequent claims of IRV promoters, IRV gives strategic incentive to truncate one's ranking. It was some time ago when I read of that, and a few minutes ago I posted, probably mistakenly, that Brams showed that IRV fails Later-No-Harm. Most likely, in B

[EM] RE: Election-methods digest, Vol 1 #397 - 6 msgs

Markus said: In the voting recommendation to the DEBIAN project, you can find a very interesting comment to this question. Norman Petry wrote (6 Feb 2001): Regardless of what names we use when referring to these methods during our committee discussions, I think it is appropriate that if one of the

[EM] Markus: Take it to individual e-mail or drop it. Don't post about it.

Markus-- If you have anything further to say about what I believed or claimed about what was the Floyd algorithm at some previous time, summarize it in _individual_ e-mail (one message only). No more list e-mail. The members of this list aren't interested in what I believed about the Floyd algo

[EM] Later-no-harm, "Earlier-no-harm"

Thanks to everyone who responded to my last message. It's possible to define (a possibly limited version of) later-no-harm as: "Adding strict preferences among candidates otherwise ranked last, should not hurt the result of the election from the perspective of this ballot." (By this definition, h

Re: [EM] Election methods Wiki

On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 12:27:39PM +0100, Bjarke Dahl Ebert wrote: > That is just what a Wiki can do. Therefore I propose that we set one up. > I would be happy to provide the web-space for it. See e.g. > http://trebe.dk/wiki/index.php/ElectionMethods/HomePage. It's almost empty now, but > I guess

[EM] Correctness of Floyd-Warshall for beatpaths

Because there has been continuing concern about the algorithm, I looked up more information in the standard textbook I referred to in an earlier email (Cormen, Leiserson, and Rivest). The Floyd-Warshall algorithm (so named because the algorithm was proposed by Floyd but based on a theorem by Wars

Re: [EM] SSD is not BeatpathWinner

Dear Mike, you wrote (23 Dec 2003): > Maybe when Markus names those methods as being the same as BeatpathWinner, > he'd like to take credit for all of them (assuming for the moment that he > really did invent BeatpathWinner). Yes he did describe CSSD after proposing > BeatpathWinner, pointing out

[EM] Election methods Wiki

Dear election methods fans, I know about Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/), which have many pages about election methods, but I know of no Wiki where election methods are being _discussed_. What I am missing, that a mailinglist cannot provide, is a medium where discussions and consensus (or the

[EM] Condorcet for public proposals

When I found out about BeatpathWinner's brief algorithm and computer program, I began recommending for committees, organizations, and polls. That was largely because the brief BeatpathWinner program was the only one that I'd written. I had diffriculty setting aside the time that it would take to

[EM] SSD is not BeatpathWinner

Markus often says that BeatpathWinner is the same as Cloneproof SSD (CSSD) and SSD. Actually no. SSD is a different method that can have different outcomes when there are pairwise ties. It's true thatr CSSD and BeatpathWinner are equivalent, always give the same outcome. In public elections, w