On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 23:49:17 +0100 James Gilmour wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
To anyone else reading, my claim is:
With the Condorcet method(s), the voter ranks all candidates liked better than "last" (optionally including ranking "last").
I asked:
Is it necessary for a voter to rank ALL candidates?
Eric replied:
No.
Which is what I said - please read carefully.
I said "ranks all candidates liked better than "last"" - MEANING "last" AND those NOT liked better can get default ranking without voter effort.
Ducking the next barb: A voter could like a candidate better than "last", but not do ranking because the liking is too trivial to be worth the effort.
I asked:
Does it cease to be "a Condorcet method" if voters have the option to truncate at their respective points of indifference?
Eric replied:
No.
Agreed.
Does Dave Ketchum agree? He made the claim.
All of this because I objected to Forest using "Condorcet" in a method name when the method involved ratings (he uses the word "grade" which seems to me to be a synonym for rating).
Seems like your request is properly directed to whoever set up the
James Gilmour PS I should appreciate receiving only one copy of EM e-mails, via the EM list.
listserve. Yahoo! does not (at least not always) default to the
addressing you object to.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
