On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:45:53AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > This summary is completely wrong for any Condorcet scheme. Ok... By definition, any member of the smith set is a plausible winner of a vote. So there's no way to show an implausible winner, if we've restricted the discussion to the smith set. My original observation about Smith/Condorcet winds up meaning that Smith/Condorcet penalizes supermajority a bit more than the current constitution. But you're right, I can't call that implausible. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONA... Anthony Towns
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONA... Raul Miller
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONA... Anthony Towns
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONA... Raul Miller
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONA... Anthony Towns
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONA... Raul Miller
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONA... Buddha Buck
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONA... Anthony Towns
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONA... Raul Miller
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONA... Buddha Buck
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONA... Anthony Towns
- RE: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONA... Norman Petry
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONA... Raul Miller
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONA... Anthony Towns
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONA... Raul Miller
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONA... Anthony Towns