---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 20:23 Subject: Re: Smith//Borda(=<). GWAGL, Diff or Ratio using lv,wv To: Forest Simmons <forest.simmons21@gmail.com> Borda(=<), even by itself, might have a useful amount of deterrence & strategy resistance, given its fully-effective equal topranking & its less-effective equal bottom ranking. Likewise if Borda(=<) we’re the Borda used in Black. On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 20:15 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> wrote: > We have a lot of promising autodeterent proposals, & that’s important > because the previously best Condorcet, wv, doesn’t get rid of the lesser of > two evils problem (LO2E) as well as I’d like: > > Because the candidate-lineups are dichotomous, I’d vote 2-valued, > all-or-nothing, like Approval. > > But then might not the lesser/evil voters do the same, & insincerely > toprank their evil, the Democrat? > > No good. > > Maybe only the new Condorcet-class, the autodeterents, can deliver on the > Condorcet promise. > > lv & wv seem the strongest, most direct, most undiluted & most reliable > clues to offensive strategy. > > …for use by GWAGLE, Diff, & it’s alternative, Ratio. > > I like Black, & it might have some autodeterence, though diluted. > > So: Smith//Borda(=<). > > Of course there are several Borda versions. > > For this purpose, & also for plain Borda, I like Borda(=<): > > A ranking gives to each candidate a point for each candidate whom it > doesn’t rank over hir. > > Equal topranking is fully-effective. Bottom-ranking is less effective the > more you bottomrank. > > Of course all of the following are applied only in the Smith-set: > > GWAGL(lv,wv): > > Elect the candidate who beats with biggest wv the candidate with lowest lv > in a defeat. > > Diff(lv,wv): > > Elect the winner in the defeat with largest wv - lv. > > Ratio(lv,wv): > > Elect the winner in the defeat with largest wv/lv. > > > > >