Craig wrote: > > If that is the STV method, then the second choice can't harm the > candidate of the first preference. The word "false", could be changed > to the word "true". Yes, second preferences can't harm the candidate of the first preference. However, first preferences can harm the candidates of lower preferences- but only in more or less absurd cases. ------------------------------------------- Nothing is foolproof given a talented fool.
- Re: [EM] Multiwinner participation rule. Reply to... David Catchpole
- [EM] Pattanaik and Peleg's 'Regularity' is not be... Craig Carey
- [EM] Cloning: 2nd preference doing worse is i... Craig Carey
- Re: [EM] Pattanaik and Peleg's 'Regularity' i... David Catchpole
- Re: [EM] Pattanaik and Peleg's 'Regularity' i... Craig Carey
- Re: [EM] Pattanaik and Peleg's 'Regularit... David Catchpole
- Re: FPTP family theory, REDLOG shadowing Markus Schulze
- Re: FPTP family theory, REDLOG shadowing Bart Ingles
- Re: FPTP ...) In STV 2nd preference won't harm 1s... Craig Carey
- Re: FPTP ...) In STV 2nd preference won't har... Bart Ingles
- Re: FPTP family theory, REDLOG shadowing David Catchpole
- Re: FPTP family theory, REDLOG shadowing Craig Carey
- Re: FPTP family theory, REDLOG shadowing DEMOREP1
- Re: FPTP family theory, REDLOG shadowing DEMOREP1
- Re: FPTP family theory, REDLOG shadowing Markus Schulze
