Hi Greg, --- En date de : Mer 15.10.08, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > This is my understanding of the majority criterion: > If X is supported by >=(floor(.5*number_of_voters)+) > voters as their first > choice, then X should win.
What is the meaning of the +? I would say it is that if X is ranked/rated strictly first by more than half of the voters, then X should win. > If the method doesn't satisfy FBC, how can this be > regarding as a good > thing, isn't it just making a massive compromising > incentive? It is not regarded as a good thing to fail FBC. I don't understand why you say "massive." Methods vary widely with respect to how much compromise incentive they provide. > Does a method count as majoritarian if a majority can > impose its will, but > doesn't necessarily have to? I don't think the term "majoritarian" has an agreed-upon meaning. The way I define the term, it is not directly related to the majority criterion. But the term "majoritarian" would be almost meaningless if it meant that a majority always has some method to make their first preference win. > Also, how do you define membership in a majority. It depends on the criterion. For the majority criterion simply, membership in the majority is determined by you strictly supporting the same first preference. > Let's pretend Alice votes Candidate X = 100 Candidate Y > = 60 > > With respect to the majority criterion, does she belong in > Camp X, or 100% > in Camp X and 60% in Camp Y? I don't know any definition of the criterion that doesn't refer to first preferences. Even your definition refers to first preferences. Kevin Venzke ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info