"A>B>>others, which is not quite the same as A>B>others."
No. A+=B is still A>B. The >> thing is irrelevant. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ] On Behalf Of Gervase Lam > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 5:16 PM > To: election-methods-electorama.com@electorama.com > Subject: [EM] Re: Bucklin > > > Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:45:11 -0500 > > From: "Paul Kislanko" > > Subject: [EM] RE: Bucklin > > > I still don't see why A+=B>others is any different from A>B>others. > > OK. Another way to describe A+=B>others is A>B>>others, which is not > quite the same as A>B>others. > > For a moment, having the '+' the way you described seemed a > bit daft to > me. But it then gave me a sort of idea of a "backwards" method. I > haven't the brain power at the moment to invent one, but is there a > method where all of the rankings are collapsed (i.e. the pluses are > ignored) and if there is still not a result, the rankings in people's > ballots are expanded? > > Or may be if an existing method can be reworded in such a way > as to have > the rankings expanded rather than collapsed? > > Thanks, > Gervase. > > > ---- > Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em > for list info > ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info