It occurs to me that on any stage of evaluation, more than one candidate could have a "majority." That makes it seem a little arbitrary to have to say, "If someone has a majority *and* it's the largest majority, stop processing." Also, since the majorities could overlap, it is more obviously artificial than an IRV majority.
Just thoughts. Stepjak --- Adam Tarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit�: > Something I've been wondering about... has anyone > suggested extending the > gradation in MCA beyond preferred, approved, and > diapproved? For example, > why not use MCA with a A,B,C,D,F ballot? If no > candidate has a majority of > A's, then check for a majority of A's and B's, then > check for a majority of > A's, B's, and C's, and finally just elect the > candidate with the most A's, > B's, C's, and D's. > > It seems like an obvious point, but I haven't > actually seen any messages > advocating it. Call it "extended MCA" or > "unconstrained Bucklin" or > "Approval Bucklin" or "Bucklin done right" or > "bubble up approval" or whatever. > ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en fran�ais ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
