What I wrote last time is about as simple as you get. Canceling the
smallest margin cancels a three-member cycle, leaving the strongest
member as CW. Could take more canceling for more complex, and thus
rarer, cycles.
Dave Ketchum
On Nov 10, 2009, at 7:54 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Trying some fresh thinking for Condorcet, and what anyone should be able
to see in the X*X array. I am ignoring labels such as Schulze and
Ranked Pairs - this is human-doable and minimal effort - especially with
normally having a CW and most cycles having the minimal three
Trying some fresh thinking for Condorcet, and what anyone should be
able to see in the X*X array. I am ignoring labels such as Schulze
and Ranked Pairs - this is human-doable and minimal effort -
especially with normally having a CW and most cycles having the
minimal three members.
1. L
On Nov 8, 2009, at 6:33 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Nov 5, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
...
Unlike FairVote et al, we don't have a strong voice saying "Hey
public, if you think Plurality sucks, implement [method here]".
but if Fair
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Nov 5, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
i don't think a sequence of elimination rounds would be okay, but the
method of picking the biggest loser for each round needs to be
debated. i am not sure what would be b
On Nov 5, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
...
simplicity and sufficient transparency is important to have public
confidence. otherwise i would probably just jump on the Schulze
bandwagon.
Ranked Pairs might be good here. If you can get the
