Forest wrote:
>I think that all candidates with less than 50% approval should be
>eliminated, except perhaps when that would eliminate all of them.
This might not solve the problem of handing the result to a 'bad Condorcet
winner' if, as I strongly suspect, there will be many cases where no
cand
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, LAYTON Craig wrote:
> Forest wrote:
>
> >Would "instant voteoff" be too suggestive of elimination (even though it
> >naturally includes full Condorcet through the round robin playoff analogy
> >mentioned above)?
>
> That sounds a bit Survivor.
>
> >By the way, I'm no spo
Forest wrote:
>Would "instant voteoff" be too suggestive of elimination (even though it
>naturally includes full Condorcet through the round robin playoff analogy
>mentioned above)?
That sounds a bit Survivor.
>By the way, I'm no sports fan, but I understand that the playoff
>tournaments of the
>Forest Simmons wrote:
>
> > "Instant Round Robin" would convey the idea of full Condorcet to sports
> > fans.
> >
> > "Instant Tournament" or "Instant Playoffs" would include simulated single
> > elimination, double elimination, and round robin concepts.
Isn't the Borda Count used to rank colleg
Forest Simmons wrote:
> "Instant Round Robin" would convey the idea of full Condorcet to sports
> fans.
>
> "Instant Tournament" or "Instant Playoffs" would include simulated single
> elimination, double elimination, and round robin concepts.
If there is a Condorcet winner then single eliminatio
Thanks Richard, I'll incorporate all of your valuable suggestions one way
or another.
I guess that "Instant Runoff Voting" is intended to be a simulated version
of a certain kind of actual runoff where the voters are required to go to
the polls up to N-1 times when there are N candidates.
It's i
