Greg Nisbet wrote:
For the record, I am against nondeterminism in single winner methods,
but that is another ball of wax that I want to keep separate.
Anyway, the single winner methods can be divided into a few basic types:
1) slow (these take O(candidates!) time. They are non-iterative)
2)
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A multiwinner analog of random
candidate would be vulnerable to cloning, and I don't think random ballot
(pick n ballots) would be proportional either.
Actually, pick n ballots would be proportional. If there are
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's another problem. If you pick n ballots, with some probability more
than one ballot is going to have the same first place candidate. This might
be solvable by picking the first place candidate of the first
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 4:44 AM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is unlikely that a nondeterminstic solution would be perfect, of course.
However, I suspect that it can deliver at least some of the benefits
of group (1) without incurring factorial execution time.
Any thoughts on the
For the record, I am against nondeterminism in single winner methods,
but that is another ball of wax that I want to keep separate.
Anyway, the single winner methods can be divided into a few basic types:
1) slow (these take O(candidates!) time. They are non-iterative)
2) fast (these rely on
