You have missed the point completely, ignoring issues of illiteracy (25% of
adults) and disability and discrimination.
It is simpler to rank candidates 1, 2, 3, 4, etc or to rate them on a
1 to 7 scale with the options in seven clear
columns than to engage in any combinatorial addition.
JG
On 13.6.2011, at 5.37, Kevin Venzke wrote:
Hi Juho,
--- En date de : Sam 11.6.11, Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk a écrit :
--- En date de : Ven 10.6.11, Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk
a écrit :
I don't recommend that voters not be
instructed on how
the method is
supposed to work.
I
On 13.6.2011, at 17.33, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Kevin Venzke wrote:
Is Condorcet//FPP a bad method?
I agree with Jameson Quinn, the gap is too far and so it could be quite
tempting to compromise as in FPTP (and failing that, to engineer a cycle if
your candidate has great first
If you want something that deters burial strategy, how about what I called
FPC? Each candidate's penalty is equal to the number of first-place votes
for those who beat him pairwise. Lowest penalty wins.
Burying a candidate may help in engineering a cycle, but it can't stack
more first-place
In the previous installment on this topic I explained why I thought that it
would be much easier to defend an uncovered winner from complaints of
unfairness, than to defend a covered winner, no matter the wonderful strengths
of the pairwise victories.Here I just want to relate the concept of
The format on that last message was so bad, that I'm going to re-send it:
In the previous installment on this topic I explained why I thought that it
would be much easier to defend an uncovered winner from complaints of
unfairness, than to defend a covered winner, no matter the wonderful
