--- Markus Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > Dear John B. Hodges, > > you wrote (1 Sep 2003): > > This method has been called "Generalized Bucklin", and AFAICT > > could also be called "Majority Choice Approval". My question, > > for one and all: Is there any desirable quality, that any > > single-winner method has, that this method does not have? > > Condorcet, Condorcet Loser, Consistency, Independence of Clones, > Reversal Symmetry, Smith, later-no-harm, Participation. > > Markus Schulze
John's definition didn't seem to allow for unused ranks, which I believe is a necessary part of MCA. I think MCA meets Clone Independence and Participation, but I'd like to hear reasoning to the contrary. Kevin Venzke [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
