Symmetrical ICT: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (Move to ranked voting methods category as this isn't a Condorcet method) |
(Do some initial cleanup of a page that needs a lot of cleanup.) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{cleanup|reason=This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states an editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic.}} |
|||
⚫ | |||
'''Symmetrical ICT''' is a voting method designed by Michael Ossipoff. <!-- when? link to EM? --> It is based on Kevin Venzke's concept of "Improved Condorcet", which is a modification of pairwise comparison logic that enables methods to pass the [[favorite betrayal criterion]] at the cost of sometimes failing the [[Condorcet criterion]]. |
|||
⚫ | |||
==Definition== |
|||
⚫ | ICT stands for "Improved-Condorcet-Top". The idea for Improved Condorcet is from Kevin Venzke. Improved Condorcet meets FBC. Then, later, Chris Benham proposed completion by top-count, to achieve "defection-resistance", avoidance of the [[chicken dilemma]]. Chris had a long name for his method, but I called it "Improved-Condorcet-Top", in keeping with Kevin's naming. |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
Then X beats Y if: |
|||
* p(X,Y) and not p(Y, X), or |
|||
* p(X,Y) and p(Y, X) and (X>Y) > (Y>X). |
|||
The winner is chosen as follows: |
|||
== Definition of Symmetrical ICT == |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
== Improved Condorcet == |
|||
⚫ | |||
Condorcet methods usually have a low but nonzero rate of [[favorite betrayal]] failures. <!-- ref EM post --> '''Improved Condorcet''' is a modification of pairwise comparisons in an otherwise Condorcet-compliant method to turn absolute Conrocet compliance and a low rate of [[FBC]] failure into absolute FBC compliance and a low rate of [[Condorcet criterion]] failures. |
|||
⚫ | |||
==History== |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | ICT stands for "Improved-Condorcet-Top". The idea for Improved Condorcet is from Kevin Venzke. Improved Condorcet meets FBC. Then, later, Chris Benham proposed completion by top-count, to achieve "defection-resistance", avoidance of the [[chicken dilemma]]. Chris had a long name for his method, but I called it "Improved-Condorcet-Top", in keeping with Kevin's naming. |
||
⚫ | |||
....(not ranking X or Y over anything) |
|||
⚫ | |||
iff means "if and only if". |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
...except that two candidates can't beat eachother. If the above beat condition statement says that two candidates beat each other, then only one of them beats the other. The one that beats the other is the one that is ranked over the other on more ballots than vice-versa. |
|||
⚫ | |||
<!-- Start of Michael's original article/essay --> |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
ranked in 1st place on the most ballots. |
|||
⚫ | |||
the unbeaten candidate ranked in 1st place on the most ballots. |
|||
[end of definition of Symmetrical ICT] |
|||
---- |
---- |