On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, [iso-8859-1] Kevin Venzke wrote: > I don't know whether you're right or not about the relationship between > Participation and Consistency. But in most Participation failure examples > I've seen, the same candidate is not the winner in both sets. For example, > for MCA:
Ah yes. I think I have been led astray by the fact that most of the participation failure examples I had seen have in fact had the same winner for both sets but not the combined one. > 5 A>B>C > 4 B>C>A > > add in: 2 C>A>B > > The winner of the two sets of votes are A and C. Combined, the winner is B. Schulze and RP don't tickle that one, I notice :-) > So perhaps Consistency is an easier-to-satisfy version of Participation? > Seems to be what you're saying. I certainly think there's some kind of close relationship between them, although it would appear not in the form I originally hoped. Back to the drawing board! > I would note that we can't easily define Consistency by changing a couple > of words in [Markus'] definition. We have to evaluate the method's winner > for the new ballots, not simply see who's ranked first, for instance. I'll think about it further ... Diana. ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
