Juho, --- Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > Example 1. Large party voters consider C better than the other large > party candidate, but not much. > > 45: L>>C>R > 40: R>>C>L > 15: C>L=R > > Ranked Preferences elects L. (first round: L=-10, C=-70, R=-20; > second round: L=-10, R=-20)
In my opinion, if C is able to convince *every voter* to acknowledge that he is better than the major party alternative, then C is surely not a bad result. As long as truncation is allowed, and voters have the opportunity to learn how the method works, I don't think "weak" CWs would be a real problem. If they're not "good enough" to win at all, people should not be giving them votes. Kevin Venzke ___________________________________________________________________________ Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions ! Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expériences des internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/Réponses http://fr.answers.yahoo.com ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info