Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>Chris wrote:
>
>
>
>>>If the balloting rules don't allow the voters to fully express their
>>>intended ranking, then we assume that the voters
>>>vote to express as much of it as the balloting rules allow, giving
>>>priority to expressing as many of their intended
>>>strict pairwise preferences as possible
>>>
>>>
>
>I reply:
>
>If we take that literally, then, if the actual method is Approval, then the
>actual ballot has to approve half of the candidates in the intended ranking,
>because that's the way to expressing as many of that ranking's pairwise
>preferences as possible. But that isn't what you intend.
>
Mike,
Yes you are right, thanks. If there are 4 candidates A,B,C,D, I want
both "A" and "ABC" to be both allowable
interpretations on an Approval ballot of the 'intended ranking' A>B>C.
But "A" only expresses 3 pairwise preferences (A>B, A>C, A>D) whereas
"AB" expresses 4 (A>C,A>D, B>C,
B>D). Also "ABC" only expresses 3 (A>D, B>D,C>D).
In a way what I said maybe wasn't ridiculous, but it wasn't and isn't
what I intend/ed. I'll re-think it.
Chris Benham
>
>
>
>
>
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
