Michael Ossipoff wrote: >Chris wrote: > > > >>>If the balloting rules don't allow the voters to fully express their >>>intended ranking, then we assume that the voters >>>vote to express as much of it as the balloting rules allow, giving >>>priority to expressing as many of their intended >>>strict pairwise preferences as possible >>> >>> > >I reply: > >If we take that literally, then, if the actual method is Approval, then the >actual ballot has to approve half of the candidates in the intended ranking, >because that's the way to expressing as many of that ranking's pairwise >preferences as possible. But that isn't what you intend. >
Mike, Yes you are right, thanks. If there are 4 candidates A,B,C,D, I want both "A" and "ABC" to be both allowable interpretations on an Approval ballot of the 'intended ranking' A>B>C. But "A" only expresses 3 pairwise preferences (A>B, A>C, A>D) whereas "AB" expresses 4 (A>C,A>D, B>C, B>D). Also "ABC" only expresses 3 (A>D, B>D,C>D). In a way what I said maybe wasn't ridiculous, but it wasn't and isn't what I intend/ed. I'll re-think it. Chris Benham > > > > > ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
