q2K BHP
Black History Portal
THE BHP WIRE —
HIDDEN TRUTHS
What's New!
THE JOURNEY THROUGH TIME

Explore Black History

Explore the people, places, events, achievements, struggles and stories that shaped our journey.

✊🏾

Civil Rights

Movements, leaders, victories and the continuing fight for equality.

⚙️

Black Inventors

Innovation, patents, science, technology and world-changing contributions.

🏆

Sports

Pioneers, champions, Negro Leagues, records, activism and excellence.

♟️

People

Meet the people whose lives, choices and achievements shaped the journey.

📍

Places

Black towns, communities, institutions and places where history happened.

📜

Events

Moments that changed communities, movements, institutions and the nation.

Enter a person, place, event, or topic.
MY'STORY

The MOVE Fire

This is a personal recollection on the Move fire on May 13, 1985 Philadelphia police fired thousands of rounds at the MOVE house, city officials approved dropping an explosive device on the roof, the resulting fire was allowed to burn, 11 people—including five children—died, and 61 homes were destroyed. Philadelphia City Council later called it a “brutal attack carried out by the City of Philadelphia on its own citizens” and acknowledged that no individual faced criminal consequences for the bombing. One timeline correction worth preserving for the BHP record: the major previous MOVE-police confrontation was August 8, 1978, about seven years before the bombing, not a year or two earlier. Officer James Ramp was killed, other police and firefighters were wounded, nine MOVE members were later convicted, and television cameras recorded police beating Delbert Africa during his arrest. The 1985 MOVE Commission later specifically criticized city planners for failing to adequately use lessons from that 1978 confrontation. And that actually strengthens the point you’re making: 1985 did not happen without precedent or institutional memory. There had already been a deadly confrontation with MOVE, years of conflict, negotiations and police involvement before Osage Avenue.

MORE →
BLACK FACTS
The Truths They Never Taught You...

The Violence That Helped Spark the NAACP

In August 1908, a white mob attacked Springfield, Illinois’s Black community, destroying homes and businesses and lynching two Black men. National outrage over the violence helped spur the movement that created the NAACP the following year.

MORE →
BHP gathered finds from its connected research sources. Showing the 4 strongest Black History matches.
← BACK TO RESULTS
Wikipedia

Minimax Condorcet method

In voting systems, the minimax Condorcet method is a single-winner ranked-choice voting method that always elects the majority (Condorcet) winner.[1] Minimax compares all candidates against each other in a round-robin tournament, then ranks candidates by their worst election result (the result where they would receive the fewest votes). The candidate with the largest (maximum) number of votes in their worst (minimum) matchup is declared the winner.

Description of the method

[edit]

The minimax Condorcet method selects the candidate for whom the greatest pairwise score for another candidate against them is the least such score among all candidates.

Football analogy

[edit]

Imagine politicians compete like football teams in a round-robin tournament, where every team plays against every other team once. In each matchup, a candidate's score is equal to the number of voters who support them over their opponent.

Minimax finds each team's (or candidate's) worst game – the one where they received the smallest number of points (votes). Each team's tournament score is equal to the number of points they got in their worst game. The first place in the tournament goes to the team with the best tournament score.

Formal definition

[edit]

Formally, let denote the pairwise score for against . Then the candidate, selected by minimax (aka the winner) is given by:

Variants of the pairwise score

[edit]

When it is permitted to rank candidates equally, or not rank all candidates, three interpretations of the rule are possible. When voters must rank all the candidates, all three variants are equivalent.

Let be the number of voters ranking X over Y. The variants define the score for candidate X against Y as:

  1. The number of voters ranking X above Y, but only when this score exceeds the number of voters ranking Y above X. If not, then the score for X against Y is zero. This variant is sometimes called winning votes is the most commonly used and preferred by social choice theorists.
  2. The number of voters ranking X above Y minus the number of voters ranking Y above X. This variant is called margins, and is less used.
  3. The number of voters ranking X above Y, regardless of whether more voters rank X above Y or vice versa. This variant is called pairwise opposition, and is also rarely used.

When one of the first two variants is used, the method can be restated as: "Disregard the weakest pairwise defeat until one candidate is unbeaten." An "unbeaten" candidate possesses a maximum score against them which is zero or negative.

Satisfied and failed criteria

[edit]

Minimax using winning votes or margins satisfies the Condorcet and the majority criterion, but not the Smith criterion, mutual majority criterion, or Condorcet loser criterion. When winning votes is used, minimax also satisfies the plurality criterion.

Minimax fails independence of irrelevant alternatives, independence of clones, local independence of irrelevant alternatives, and independence of Smith-dominated alternatives.[citation needed]

With the pairwise opposition variant (sometimes called MMPO), minimax only satisfies the majority-strength Condorcet criterion; a candidate with a relative majority over every other may not be elected. MMPO is a later-no-harm system and also satisfies sincere favorite criterion.

Nicolaus Tideman modified minimax to only drop edges that create Condorcet cycles, allowing his method to satisfy many of the above properties. Schulze's method similarly reduces to minimax when there are only three candidates.

Examples

[edit]

Example with Condorcet winner

[edit]

Map showing voting districts in Tennessee
Tennessee voting pattern


42% of voters 26% of voters 15% of voters 17% of voters
  1. Memphis
  2. Nashville
  3. Chattanooga
  4. Knoxville
  1. Nashville
  2. Chattanooga
  3. Knoxville
  4. Memphis
  1. Chattanooga
  2. Knoxville
  3. Nashville
  4. Memphis
  1. Knoxville
  2. Chattanooga
  3. Nashville
  4. Memphis

Suppose Tennessee is holding an election on the location of its capital. The population is split between four cities, and all the voters want the capital to be as close to them as possible. The options are:


The results of the pairwise scores would be tabulated as follows:

Pairwise election results
X
Memphis Nashville Chattanooga Knoxville
Y Memphis [X] 58%
[Y] 42%
[X] 58%
[Y] 42%
[X] 58%
[Y] 42%
Nashville [X] 42%
[Y] 58%
[X] 32%
[Y] 68%
[X] 32%
[Y] 68%
Chattanooga [X] 42%
[Y] 58%
[X] 68%
[Y] 32%
[X] 17%
[Y] 83%
Knoxville [X] 42%
[Y] 58%
[X] 68%
[Y] 32%
[X] 83%
[Y] 17%
Pairwise election results (won-tied-lost): 0–0–3 3–0–0 2–0–1 1–0–2
worst pairwise defeat (winning votes): 58% 0% 68% 83%
worst pairwise defeat (margins): 16% −16% 36% 66%
worst pairwise opposition: 58% 42% 68% 83%
  • [X] indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the column caption to the candidate listed in the row caption
  • [Y] indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the row caption to the candidate listed in the column caption

Result: In all three alternatives Nashville has the lowest value and is elected winner.

Example with Condorcet winner that is not elected winner (for pairwise opposition)

[edit]

Assume three candidates A, B and C and voters with the following preferences:

4% of voters 47% of voters 43% of voters 6% of voters
1. A and C 1. A 1. C 1. B
2. C 2. B 2. A and C
3. B 3. B 3. A

The results would be tabulated as follows:

Pairwise election results
X
A B C
Y A [X] 49%
[Y] 51%
[X] 43%
[Y] 47%
B [X] 51%
[Y] 49%
[X] 94%
[Y] 6%
C [X] 47%
[Y] 43%
[X] 6%
[Y] 94%
Pairwise election results (won-tied-lost): 2–0–0 0–0–2 1–0–1
worst pairwise defeat (winning votes): 0% 94% 47%
worst pairwise defeat (margins): −2% 88% 4%
worst pairwise opposition: 49% 94% 47%
  • [X] indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the column caption to the candidate listed in the row caption
  • [Y] indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the row caption to the candidate listed in the column caption

Result: With the winning votes and margins alternatives, the Condorcet winner A is declared Minimax winner. However, using the pairwise opposition alternative, C is declared winner, since less voters strongly oppose him in his worst pairwise score against A than A is opposed by in his worst pairwise score against B.

Example without Condorcet winner

[edit]

Assume four candidates A, B, C and D. Voters are allowed to not consider some candidates (denoting an n/a in the table), so that their ballots are not taken into account for pairwise scores of that candidates.

30 voters 15 voters 14 voters 6 voters 4 voters 16 voters 14 voters 3 voters
1. A 1. D 1. D 1. B 1. D 1. C 1. B 1. C
2. C 2. B 2. B 2. C 2. C 2. A and B 2. C 2. A
3. B 3. A 3. C 3. A 3. A and B
4. D 4. C 4. A 4. D
n/a D n/a A and D n/a B and D

The results would be tabulated as follows:

Pairwise election results
X
A B C D
Y A [X] 35
[Y] 30
[X] 43
[Y] 45
[X] 33
[Y] 36
B [X] 30
[Y] 35
[X] 50
[Y] 49
[X] 33
[Y] 36
C [X] 45
[Y] 43
[X] 49
[Y] 50
[X] 33
[Y] 36
D [X] 36
[Y] 33
[X] 36
[Y] 33
[X] 36
[Y] 33
Pairwise election results (won-tied-lost): 2–0–1 2–0–1 2–0–1 0–0–3
worst pairwise defeat (winning votes): 35 50 45 36
worst pairwise defeat (margins): 5 1 2 3
worst pairwise opposition: 43 50 49 36
  • [X] indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the column caption to the candidate listed in the row caption
  • [Y] indicates voters who preferred the candidate listed in the row caption to the candidate listed in the column caption

Result: Each of the three alternatives gives another winner:

  • the winning votes alternative chooses A as winner, since it has the lowest value of 35 votes for the winner in his biggest defeat;
  • the margin alternative chooses B as winner, since it has the lowest difference of votes in his biggest defeat;
  • and pairwise opposition chooses the Condorcet loser D as winner, since it has the lowest votes of the biggest opponent in all pairwise scores.

See also

[edit]
  • Minimax – main minimax article
  • Multiwinner voting – contains information on some multiwinner variants of minimax Condorcet.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "[EM] the name of the rose". lists.electorama.com. Retrieved 2024-02-12.
  • Levin, Jonathan, and Barry Nalebuff. 1995. "An Introduction to Vote-Counting Schemes." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(1): 3–26.
[edit]

Source: Wikipedia. Article content is retrieved live through the MediaWiki API.

No preview image
Wikipedia

Minimax Condorcet method

In voting systems, the minimax Condorcet method is a single-winner ranked-choice voting method that always elects the majority (Condorcet) winner. Minimax compares all candidates against each other in a round-robin tournament, then ranks candidates by their worst election result (the result where they would receive the fewest votes). The candidate with the largest (maximum) number of votes in their worst (minimum) matchup is declared the winner.

MORE →
Wikipedia

Condorcet method

The Condorcet or majority-rule methods (English: ; French: [kɔ̃dɔʁsɛ]) are a family of election systems that elect the majority-preferred (Condorcet) winner if one exists. A majority-preferred candidate is a candidate who would win a majority of votes in any head-to-head election against any opponent. In other words, they are a candidate who would win in any one-on-one race (one without spoilers). The head-to-head elections need not be done separately; a voter's choice within any given pair can be determined from the ranking. Some elections may not have a Condorcet winner because the majority's preferences can be cyclic: in other words, it is possible every candidate has an opponent that would defeat them in a two-candidate contest. This is similar to a game of rock, paper, scissors: a candidate "scissors" may beat "paper," but still lose to "rock". The possibility of such a cycle is known as Condorcet's paradox. (Empirically, however, such cycles are rare, with most large public elections having a Condorcet winner. As a result, all Condorcet methods reduce to simple majority rule in most cases.) Under many models of voting, the Condorcet winner is typically the same as the socially optimal winner. However, this is not guaranteed to be the case; situations where the two disagree are commonly called tyranny of the majority scenarios (particularly if the disagreement is large). Condorcet voting methods are named for the 18th-century French mathematician, the Marquis de Condorcet, who popularized the concept. Condorcet methods were first extensively analyzed by Ramon Llull, but the manuscripts of these works were lost from the Late Middle Ages until being rediscovered in the 20th century. Condorcet methods are commonly used to vote on motions and amendments in assemblies and legislatures, as they allow replacing paper ballots with a series of simple majority votes, with prominent parliamentary procedure handbooks such as Jefferson's Manual and Robert's Rules of Order prescribing their use. However, public elections typically use ranked ballots to avoid the time and complexity of a full round-robin tournament with each voter's choice in a paired matchup being determined by checking which candidate has the higher rank or rating on a ballot. In a contest between candidates A, B and C using the preferential-vote form of Condorcet method, a head-to-head race is conducted between each pair of candidates. A and B, B and C, and C and A. If one candidate is preferred over all others, they are the Condorcet Winner and winner of the election. Because of the possibility of the Condorcet paradox, it is possible (but empirically rare) that a Condorcet winner does not exist in a specific election. This is sometimes called a Condorcet cycle or just cycle and can be thought of as Rock beating Scissors, Scissors beating Paper, and Paper beating Rock. Various Condorcet methods differ in how they resolve such a cycle. (Most elections do not have cycles. See Condorcet paradox#Likelihood for estimates.) If there is no cycle, all Condorcet methods elect the same candidate and are operationally equivalent. Each voter ranks the candidates in order of preference (top-to-bottom, or best-to-worst, or 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.). The voter may be allowed to rank candidates as equals and to express indifference (no preference) between them. Candidates omitted by a voter may be treated as if the voter ranked them at the bottom. For each pairing of candidates (as in a round-robin tournament) count how many votes rank each candidate over the other candidate. Thus each pairing will have two totals: the size of its majority and the size of its minority (or there will be a tie). For most Condorcet methods, those counts usually suffice to determine the complete order of finish (i.e. who won, who came in 2nd place, etc.). They always suffice to determine whether there is a Condorcet winner. Additional information may be needed in the event of ties. Ties can be pairings that have no majority, or they can be majorities that are the same size. Such ties will be rare when there are many voters. Some Condorcet methods may have other kinds of ties. For example, with Copeland's method, it would not be rare for two or more candidates to win the same number of pairings, when there is no Condorcet winner.

MORE →
No preview image
Wikipedia

Copeland's method

The Copeland or Llull method is a ranked-choice voting system based on counting each candidate's pairwise wins and losses. In the system, voters rank candidates from best to worst on their ballot. Candidates then compete in a round-robin tournament, where the ballots are used to determine which candidate would be preferred by a majority of voters in each matchup. The winner is the candidate who wins the most matchups (with ties winning half a point). Copeland's method falls in the class of Condorcet methods, as any candidate who wins every one-on-one election will clearly have the most victories overall. Copeland's method has the advantage of being likely the simplest Condorcet method to explain and of being easy to administer by hand. On the other hand, as one-on-one ties are common or score ties are common, the procedure frequently results in ties, hence often producing no Condorcet winner. As a result, it is typically only used for low-stakes elections. A special case of this method is promoted by Better Choices for Democracy under the name Consensus Choice Voting.

MORE →
No preview image
Wikipedia

Schulze method

The Schulze method (), also known as the beatpath method, is a single winner ranked-choice voting rule developed by Markus Schulze. The Schulze method is a Condorcet completion method, which means it will elect a majority-preferred candidate if one exists. In other words, if most people rank A above B, A will defeat B (whenever this is possible). Schulze's method breaks cyclic ties by using indirect victories. The idea is that if Alice beats Bob, and Bob beats Charlie, then Alice (indirectly) beats Charlie; this kind of indirect win is called a "beatpath". The Schulze method is used by several organizations including Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo, Pirate Party political parties and many others. It was also used by Wikimedia prior to their adoption of score voting.

MORE →
TOPIC OF THE DAY

Greenwood / Black Wall Street

Before the 1921 destruction of Tulsa’s Greenwood District, Black residents had created a remarkable center of business and community life. The district included stores, professional offices, entertainment venues and homes owned by Black citizens. Understanding Greenwood means learning what was built—not only what was burned.

MORE →
TRIVIA QUESTION OF THE DAY

Which Supreme Court case ruled state-sponsored public-school segregation unconstitutional?

Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.