MDD//Score

Lime

An improvement on STAR that restores almost-full compliance with all of Score's properties, without being much more complex than STAR.

If there is a chain of majority-strength wins going from dominator to loser, but not from loser to dominator, eliminate loser.
Rescale ballots.
Elect the score winner.

As a bonus, this method satisfies the strategy-free criterion (see the electowiki article on Score DSV), and basically every other strategy-resistance criterion.

GregW

@lime

I love the benefits, however I must admit my lack of expertise and say I do not understand what you are proposing.

Casimir

I like it. Is there a particular reason you rescale the ballots? It would be easier to advocate for that method without the need to explain that step.

Toby Pereira

@lime said in MDD//Score:

An improvement on STAR that restores almost-full compliance with all of Score's properties, without being much more complex than STAR.

If there is a chain of majority-strength wins going from dominator to loser, but not from loser to dominator, eliminate loser.

Rescale ballots.

Elect the score winner.

As a bonus, this method satisfies the strategy-free criterion (see the electowiki article on Score DSV), and basically every other strategy-resistance criterion.

Does this just mean eliminate all the candidates not in the Smith Set?

Casimir

Since it seems to be based on MDDA, it considers defeats by a majority of all voters.

Jack Waugh

Too complex to sell.

Lime

@casimir said in MDD//Score:

I like it. Is there a particular reason you rescale the ballots? It would be easier to advocate for that method without the need to explain that step.

You can skip that step, and honestly I'd agree.

Lime

@jack-waugh said in MDD//Score:

Too complex to sell.

I think "eliminate any candidate who would lose in a runoff" is about as complicated as "hold a runoff between the top-two vote-getters"

Lime

@toby-pereira said in MDD//Score:

Does this just mean eliminate all the candidates not in the Smith Set?

Eliminate all candidates with a majority-strength pairwise defeat. (Or outside the majority-strength Smith set, if that would eliminate all candidates, but that last part shouldn't be discussed in conversations with voters just like how we don't discuss resolving ties.)

Jack Waugh

@lime said in MDD//Score:

eliminate any candidate who would lose in a runoff

If that's what it amounts to, then maybe a restatement of the definition in terms of predicting such a runoff would make the definition easier to read for a broad and skeptical audience.