> [EM] STAR is winning CIVS poll > > *Michael Ossipoff*email9648742 at gmail.com > <mailto:election-methods%40lists.electorama.com?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BEM%5D%20STAR%20is%20winning%20CIVS%20poll&In-Reply-To=%3CCAOKDY5DXHcY7wkUAvBDpYuUp9n1xqYA%2B9aWtKBtA9qb-rB9TCw%40mail.gmail.com%3E> > /Thu Apr 11 18:01:58 PDT 2024/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > STAR is winning my CIVS poll named “4 voting-systems.” https://civs1.civs.us/cgi-bin/vote.pl?id=E_6d34fc1b4ccc480c Are the "write-ins" defined anywhere? What is "Split-Cycle" ? Chris

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 21:03 Chris Benham <cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > [EM] STAR is winning CIVS > > > > > > https://civs1.civs.us/cgi-bin/vote.pl?id=E_6d34fc1b4ccc480c > > Are the "write-ins" defined anywhere? > > What is "Split-Cycle" ? > If it was I who used that name, that must have been when I thought tha RP was the same as Split-Cycle. There’s someone who proposes something by that name, I it’s definition misleadingly sounds like a briefer definition of RP. Kevin pointed out that it isn’t. Maybe at that time was calling RP Split-Cycle. The fact that it’s hyphenated suggests that it was I, because I do that. Are there write-in’s other than STAR & Score? I’ve got to take another look at the poll. If someone wrote-in something new, they should have defined it. I’ll take another look at the poll. >

I checked the poll, & Split-Cycle was written-in very recently, after my most recent check, just a few days ago. RP(wv) was one of my own alternatives, along with Approval & MinMax(wv). I wanted to poll about those 3, because they’re the ones that I’d offer. Approval 1st, & the other two if they insist on rankings. Now, I’d add Smith//Approval(ranked = approved), because it has the properties I want, & is especially natural & intuitive. So is RP, but Smith//Approval(r) follows directly from Approval, &, is a bit more briefly-defined. So: Approval, RP(wv), Smith//Approval(r), & MinMax(wv). Also I’m going to replace Schulze with Smith//Approval(r). Schulze is much too complicated for a public proposal. I should have a defined this poll about g overall suitability for a public proposal, instead of just merit in use. Can I change that. Anyway, complexity spoils merit in use too, when the resulting checking-difficulty & lack of transparency spoil count-security. The article or paper defined Split-Cycle like this: Drop the weakest defeat in each cycle. Kevin pointed out a problem with that. You can probably find the article by googling “Split-Cycle”. But don’t bother. Based on what Kevin showed, that method doesn’t sound good. On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 22:13 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 21:03 Chris Benham <cbenhamau@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >> >> [EM] STAR is winning CIVS >> >> >> >> >> >> https://civs1.civs.us/cgi-bin/vote.pl?id=E_6d34fc1b4ccc480c >> >> Are the "write-ins" defined anywhere? >> >> What is "Split-Cycle" ? >> > > If it was I who used that name, that must have been when I thought tha RP > was the same as Split-Cycle. There’s someone who proposes something by that > name, I it’s definition misleadingly sounds like a briefer definition of > RP. Kevin pointed out that it isn’t. > > Maybe at that time was calling RP Split-Cycle. The fact that it’s > hyphenated suggests that it was I, because I do that. > > Are there write-in’s other than STAR & Score? I’ve got to take another > look at the poll. If someone wrote-in something new, they should have > defined it. > > I’ll take another look at the poll. > >>