Hi,
--- Paul Kislanko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Forest W Simmons wrote:
>
> >>re's the improved version of PG-MPO (for want of a better name):
>
> Ballots are range style.
>
> For each candidate X and each range level R, let A(X,R) be the number
> of ballots on which X is rated at level R or above.<<
>
> Here's the problem with that. If R is not an ordinal rank, then in "range
> style" every voter has a potentially different definition for "R".
> Everything that follows in the description is either ambiguous or
> requires
> some kind of normalization for "R", which would introduce a method affect
> that is independent of the voter's choice.
Actually I think this criticism is reasonable even when R *is* an
ordinal rank. This is largely why I don't like Bucklin very much.
Kevin Venzke
___________________________________________________________________________
Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions !
Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expériences des internautes sur
Yahoo! Questions/Réponses
http://fr.answers.yahoo.com
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
