Name of Method: … CW,Takedown-Elimination (CTE) … or … Simmons-Ossipoff Method … Okay yes, I like the 2nd one. … It adds an enhancement to any of several already-existing elimination-methods. … Here are 3 elimination-methods that eliminate 1 candidate at a time: … RCV/IRV: Eliminates lowest topcount … Coombs: Eliminates highest bottomcount … Baldwin; Eliminates lowest Borda-score. … Any one of those can be the “base-method” . … Method rule: … Ranked balloting. Equal-rankng & truncation allowed. … 1) Check for a CW & elect hir. … 2) If none, do the base-method. … 3) During the doing of the base-method: … When the base-method’s rule eliminates a candidate, eliminate additionally anyone who is pair-beaten by that candidate. …& additionally any candidate beaten by that 2nd candidate. … That’s takedown & secondary takedown. … 4) If anyone becomes un-pairbeaten due to elimination of who beats hir, s/he wins. … 5) Continue till only one candidate remains uneliminated. … [end of count-rule definition] … Though it was Forest who introduced the unprecedentedly gamechanging Takedown, & applied it to Coombs & Baldwin, the bombast in this post is all mine. … Obviously a CW wins if voting is sincere. … There’s no offensive strategy for changing the CW to one’s own favorite. … There’s no need for defensive strategy to protect the win of a CW. … While MinMax(wv), Schulze, RP(wv) & Smith//MinMax(wv) require defensive truncation to deter burial strategy against the CW, the above-defined method requires no such defensive strategy, & voters can rank all the way down to the bottom if they want to. … Michael Ossipoff

For the purpose of takedown & secondary takedown, "pair-beaten" should probably mean "pairbeaten according to the rankings before any eliminations". On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 5:01 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> wrote: > Name of Method: > > … > > CW,Takedown-Elimination (CTE) > > … > > or > > … > > Simmons-Ossipoff Method > > … > > Okay yes, I like the 2nd one. > > … > > It adds an enhancement to any of several already-existing > elimination-methods. > > … > > Here are 3 elimination-methods that eliminate 1 candidate at a time: > > … > > RCV/IRV: Eliminates lowest topcount > > … > > Coombs: Eliminates highest bottomcount > > … > > Baldwin; Eliminates lowest Borda-score. > > … > > Any one of those can be the “base-method” . > > … > > Method rule: > > … > > Ranked balloting. Equal-rankng & truncation allowed. > > … > > 1) Check for a CW & elect hir. > > … > > 2) If none, do the base-method. > > … > > 3) During the doing of the base-method: > > … > > When the base-method’s rule eliminates a candidate, eliminate additionally > anyone who is pair-beaten by that candidate. …& additionally any > candidate beaten by that 2nd candidate. > > … > > That’s takedown & secondary takedown. > > … > > 4) If anyone becomes un-pairbeaten due to elimination of who beats hir, > s/he wins. > > … > > 5) Continue till only one candidate remains uneliminated. > > … > > [end of count-rule definition] > > … > > Though it was Forest who introduced the unprecedentedly gamechanging > Takedown, & applied it to Coombs & Baldwin, the bombast in this post is all > mine. > > … > > Obviously a CW wins if voting is sincere. > > … > > There’s no offensive strategy for changing the CW to one’s own favorite. > > … > > There’s no need for defensive strategy to protect the win of a CW. > > … > > While MinMax(wv), Schulze, RP(wv) & Smith//MinMax(wv) require defensive > truncation to deter burial strategy against the CW, the above-defined > method requires no such defensive strategy, & voters can rank all the way > down to the bottom if they want to. > > … > > Michael Ossipoff >