Check also James Green-Armytage's cardinal-weighted pairwise
comparison method if you haven't don that yet. => http://
fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/cwp13.htm
Can you also clarify a bit how step 3 is counted when some candidate
X is beaten by two other candidates (Y and Z).
I find the proposed method interesting since it seems to aim at
electing good winners (using a function minimizes the problems caused
to the voters, from one point of view).
Juho
On Mar 2, 2008, at 22:20 , <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just an addendum from previous post (Minimum Distance Condorcet
Completion). I'm curious about voting methods that take ranked
ballot methods and adapt them to range ballots. For example, with
Baldwin's method, you take drop the candidate with the lowest Borda
score, recalculate, and so on. A range variant might drop the
candidate with the lowest range score, normalize the remaining
scores, and repeat. It should still give the Condorcet winner (if
any) but it might fit different election criteria than standard
Baldwin. Likewise, a range generalization of the Kemeny-Young order
might be interesting.
I figure Warren Smith would know the names of range variants, but
I'm sure others would as well. Anything with pretty graphs involved
is also cool. (grin)
And as always, I probably saw something like this a year ago and
just forgot. A lot of time these things sit in my mind, and then
something triggers the interest.
Michael Rouse
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
