This is an example of where expert jargon is counter-intuitive to a beginner.
If a completed ranked ballot looks like this: Candiate Rank A 2 B 3 C 1 D 4 We tend to loosely say that "C is ranked 'higher' than B" which is counter-intuitive because the number 1 is 'lower' than the number 3. Anthony --- Craig Carey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here is the definition of Monotonicity of Mr G-A: > > | 5. Monotonicity: If candidate A wins with certainty according to > a set > | of ballots, and some of the ballots are subsequently changed only > in > | that A is ranked and/or rated higher on those ballots, then A > should > | still win with certainty. > > Compare that with the wordign of Mr Schulze's Voting Matters 17 > article: > > > } 5.2 Monotonicity > } > } Monotonicity says that when some voters rank candidate A higher > without > } changing the order in which they rank the other candidates > relatively > } to each other then the probability that candidate A is elected > must not > } decrease. > } > } The Schulze method meets monotonicity. > > Clearly that is too wrong to be acceptable since: > > (1) Both use the word "higher" to mean 'lower'. Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
