Greg Nisbet wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you like Range, this may be to your advantage, since you could
say that instead of there being only one Condorcet method that
satisfies FBC, there are
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is called Cardinal Condorcet or something like that and is detailed
here: http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/cwp13.htm
This is interesting.
I am unsure why the voter has to submit both a ranked list and a rated
Jobst Heitzig wrote:
Dear Kristofer,
you wrote:
This is really a question of whether a candidate loved by 49% and
considered kinda okay by 51% should win when compared to a candidate
hated by the 49% and considered slightly better than the first by the
51%. A strict interpretation of the
Greg Nisbet wrote:
Reasons why Range is better and always will be.
I would like to end the truce.
I'll be generous to the Condorcet camp and assume they suggest something
reasonable like RP, Schulze or River.
Property Related:
favorite betrayal, participation and consistency.
Implications:
Hi Greg,
--- En date de : Mer 15.10.08, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
On the topic of whether there is a method that
satisfies both
Condorcet and FBC.
There is not. I believe I have demonstrated this in the past, by modifying
a Woodall proof that shows Condorcet to be incompatible
Reasons why Range is better and always will be.
I would like to end the truce.
I'll be generous to the Condorcet camp and assume they suggest something
reasonable like RP, Schulze or River.
Property Related:
favorite betrayal, participation and consistency.
Implications:
1) It is always good to
Hello,
--- En date de : Sam 11.10.08, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
De: Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet: [EM] Range Condorcet (No idea who started this argument, sorry; I am
Gregory Nisbet)
À: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Date: Samedi 11 Octobre 2008, 2h01
Reasons
