Rather than starting from scratch, I thought I would instead quote my own
e-mail so that I don't have to re-explain myself. The quotes have also
been (sort of) moved about slightly.
From: Gervase Lam
Subject: Possible Multi-Winner Pairwise techniques/algorithms (Part 1)
Date: Sunday 29 May
In the Parts 1 and 2, the 'seeds' are ballots. The winners come/develop
from these seeds.
The problem with this is that the methods I discussed do not guarantee n
winners. So, I decided to take it from another direction. What if the
seeds were the candidates themselves.
If each candidate x
Hello folks!
I have thought some time about how to visualize voting situations
graphically and came about the following model:
Candidates and voters are represented by points in some metric
space, preferences are according to distance, and a candidate is
approved iff s/he is at most 1 unit
While finding a way to group candidates together in order to find a
multi-winner pairwise method, I came up with a technique/algorithm for MAM
that partially works. It should also work for Ranked Pairs, considering
that RP is almost the same as RP.
Imagine that so far MAM has created a two
Forest--
Thanks for the explanation about Sprucing-Up. I've noticed that there was
much discussion of it in December, or thereabouts, so I've probably found
the main discussion. But I agree that it sounds too restrictive, especially
now that I've found out that FBC and Strong FBC are
I said:
It seems to me that it was said that cycle-collapsing caused nonmonotonicity
with PC (MinMax(wv)), but maybe it wouldn't with MMPO. It's tempting to use
it to change FBC compliance to Strong FBC compliance, with MMPO, as an
enhancement to be proposed after plain MMPO is adopted.
I
