Mike wrote: Mike: >First of all, with 3 candidates, you can have 6 preference orderings >of those 3 candidates. Considering truncation, there are only >9 possible rankings, not 15 (the figure you gave): > >A B C > >A B C >B A A > >A B C >C C B Don: So far - so good - but you need more. Mike:> >Your last rows of rankings unnecessarily & meaninglessly >rank a last choice. Don: If the voters want to list all candidates, the voters should be allowed to do so - kind of like a vote of confidence for the winner. >*** > >Realistic? Your examples where every possible ranking occurs >frequently enough to be important in the election & in the example >is most unrealistic. Don: The mathematics of whatever method you are using should be able to handle every possible ranking that may occur. > >To use my usual Presidential example, how many Dole voters would >like Nader's policy proposals better than those of Republocrat Clinton? >How many Republicans would consider Nader's policies closer to >the Republican policies than those of Clinton. Don: Are you calling Clinton a Republocrat? Your opinions of the current election are showing - do not mix them with your examples - my point stands. Donald at New Democracy http://www.mich.com/~donald - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
