Mike Ossipoff wrote:
Weak Participation is such a natural consistency desideratum, it
probably already has a name. Maybe it's called Mono-Add-Solo-Top. If
not, that might be a good name for it. More descriptive than Weak
Participation.
Weak Participation:
Adding a ballot shouldn't cause the
Hi Juho,
- Mail original -
De : Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk
Plurality is just a description that is convenient for discussion on the
EM list. Ranking above last place isn't a concept that
exists (until
someone feels it would aid their position to bring it up).
It just
Looks good. Similar to ICT, I think, and simpler (from my perspective).
What does ERABW stand for? This should have a good name; Least
Disappontment Condorcef or something of the kind.
2012/11/16 Chris Benham cbenha...@yahoo.com.au
I propose the following as a reasonably practical, summable,
On 16 Nov 2012 07:29:52 -0800, Chris Benham wrote:
It isn't a big deal if Ranked Pairs or River are used instead of
Schulze. Losing Votes means that the pairwise results are weighed
purely by the number of votes on the losing side. The weakest
defeats are those with the most votes on the
2012/11/16 Ted Stern araucaria.arauc...@gmail.com
On 16 Nov 2012 07:29:52 -0800, Chris Benham wrote:
It isn't a big deal if Ranked Pairs or River are used instead of
Schulze. Losing Votes means that the pairwise results are weighed
purely by the number of votes on the losing side. The
