James Green-Armytage wrote:
Dear Election Methods Fans,
I've been working on a paper entitled Four Condorcet-Hare hybrid
methods for single-winner elections, which I'd like to submit to Voting
Matters sometime in the near future, and I'd really appreciate your
comments and feedback.
Here
Hi Kristofer,
--- En date de : Sam 19.2.11, Kristofer Munsterhjelm km-el...@broadpark.no a
écrit :
Some other observations: it seems that adding a Smith
constraint (Smith, or Smith//) limits the vulnerability to
compromising, and that having the base method satisfy LNHarm
greatly limits
Kevin Venzke wrote:
Hi Kristofer,
--- En date de : Sam 19.2.11, Kristofer Munsterhjelm km-el...@broadpark.no a
écrit :
Some other observations: it seems that adding a Smith
constraint (Smith, or Smith//) limits the vulnerability to
compromising, and that having the base method satisfy LNHarm
Hi Kristofer,
--- En date de : Sam 19.2.11, Kristofer Munsterhjelm km-el...@broadpark.no a
écrit :
Well actually it's LNHelp that gives you immunity to
burial. (DSC, QR, and
MMPO are vulnerable in varying ways.) And sadly it
seems to me that the desirability of having other voters
doubt
2011/2/19 Kristofer Munsterhjelm km-el...@broadpark.no
Kevin Venzke wrote:
Hi Kristofer,
--- En date de : Sam 19.2.11, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
km-el...@broadpark.no a écrit :
Some other observations: it seems that adding a Smith
constraint (Smith, or Smith//) limits the vulnerability to
Hi Kristofer,
Thank you very much for the thoughtful comments. Some replies follow.
Kristofer wrote:
?Regarding most strategies being burial or compromising: I seem to recall
that in your previous paper, that was the case for most methods, but not
for Hare (IRV) and top-two runoff. For the
Dear Election Methods Fans,
I've been working on a paper entitled Four Condorcet-Hare hybrid methods for
single-winner elections, which I'd like to submit to Voting Matters sometime
in the near future, and I'd really appreciate your comments and feedback.
Here is a link to the current draft:
