Hi Mike,
De : Jameson Quinn <jameson.qu...@gmail.com>
>À : MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkk...@hotmail.com>
>Cc : election-meth...@electorama.com
>Envoyé le : Mardi 28 février 2012 15h29
>Objet : Re: [EM] C/D is persistent. Another Approval C/D mitigation. IRV and
>sincerity.
>
>
>(Though I'd still really appreciate it if you made quick electowiki pages for
>all of that, because I'd bet that nobody but you actually knows what every one
>of those means, and it would be considerate of you not to ask us to
>continually look up all the definitions and redefinitions in the archives).
>
>
>Jameson
>
>
>2012/2/28 MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkk...@hotmail.com>
>
>The methods that I've been suggesting, to get rid of the C/D problem--I'll
>refer to those as
>>"defection-resistant" methods. They include AOC, MTAOC, MCAOC, AOCBucklin,
>>AC, MTAC,
>>MCAC, ACBudklin, MMT, GMAT, and ICT.
>
Also, if any good ones need to be tested for FBC compliance, my sim is
pretty accurate at finding this via its "percentage of voters deciding to
compromise" statistic. FBC methods tend to show zero.
It doesn't provide anything that could be used as a proof though.
Kevin
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
