Rob,
--- Rob Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> > Additional ballots aren't a bad idea. Say that the beatpath(wv)
> > winner has a score of 0. Everyone else's score is the number of
> > bullet votes they'd neat to become the Condorcet winner. (You
> > could also say "to become the beatpath winner," but that would be
> > harder to calculate.) That gives a good idea of how close everyone
> > was, and still picks a good winner.
>
> I think you have described Minmax (margins) as the way of assigning scores. I
> don't particularly like the inconsistancy of using beatpath to determine the
> winner (and arbitrarily giving the winner a score of 0), then using minmax to
> determine the score.
>
> Still, interesting....
The problem I see is that the best Condorcet rankings-only methods seem
to have already been invented. So unless your method is going to be sub-par,
you have to agree with one of them for the first position.
If you don't like the inconsistency of mixing methods, you could go with
my other suggestion, to score based on the number of bullet votes needed
to make a given candidate into the beatpath(wv) winner. This is just
potentially a lot harder to calculate.
Using this rule, the winner could be assigned a negative score, if you
wanted, since it's likely that the winner could sacrifice some bullet
votes (assuming some actually exist) and still win.
Kevin Venzke
___________________________________________________________________________
Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger
Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
